Slashdot Mirror

most of that money is created these days. This just in: IMF head says US should continue to print money:

"He said the Federal Reserve's latest round of easing policies meant to stimulate the economy was necessary."

P.S.=> I am going to let YOU continue to embarass yourself, and watch you eat your words (and so will everyone else here reading), because you shot your mouth off both times above and I had reliable sources disproving you at every turn and you called me NAMES? WELL, time to watch you squirm is all, unless you can prove me wrong... apk

That's a lot of talk from someone who hides behind an anonymous handle. If you read the MS case study in detail (which you didn't), you would see that it says: "MDDS receives direct feeds from NASDAQ's trade reporting system, and collects the data, storing it in SQL Server 2005. It is then available in real time for queries by market participants, including those using the NASDAQ Workstation, a Web-based tool that connects to NASDAQ trading systems. " MDDS "connects to" the trading and the reporting system? But isn't MDDS the trading system? That's a logic problem there.

Like many case studies, MS trumps up what it did. Every company does it; Oracle installing a small DB at company might issue a press release how said company is installing Oracle into "vital systems." Yes the MDDS system "supports" the booking system. Traders large and small rely on the information that MDDS provides; however, MDDS is not the trading system itself.

If you read carefully, logic would lead anyone to that conclusion that MDDS is not the trading system. 100,000 queries a day is nowhere near adequate volume for NASDAQ. It is however, adequate for a reporting system. A you never addressed this point. How can a 100,000 a day system handle the sheer volume of NASDAQ? NASDAQ reportedaverage daily share volume of 311 million for February 2005. Average Daily Volume of 311,000,000 / 6.5 hours / 60 minutes per hour/ 60 seconds per minute = 13,290 trades per second. How can a system that handles 100,000 queries a day handle that? NASDAQ would only be able to function for 10 seconds a day. Logic and math would lead that it can't. If I were you, I'd read more carefully as you seem to read just the headlines but no details. I'd also do more research from other sources: Google seems to confirm what you refuse to admit that NASDAQ's trading system does run on Linux. Like many other companies, NASDAQ runs multiple applications on multiple platforms.

If that were true Android never would have taken off: "App developers more bullish on Android than iOS"

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-09/app-developers-more-bullish-on-android-than-ios.aspx?storyid=37842

Well, ok but:
1) Android developers aren't users.
2) Android phones are, by and large, exactly as locked-down as iOS devices. I had to jailbreak (or whatever the term is) my HTC Aria before I could remove ATT's built-in apps, for example.

Just see how many exclusive titles Microsoft had to purchase in order to ensure XBOX's success.

While Microsoft did make quite a few purchases in this area, it was certainly no more than has historically been done for a console. That's just normal business in that industry-- or do you honestly think Sony has never bought exclusives either? (Nintendo is kind of a special case, as their own in-house game development is prolific enough that I think they can mostly slide by without third-party developers. Despite that, before Microsoft bought Rare titles, Nintendo did...)

Only in this case the developers are driving the apps and they're choosing Android because its much more open.

Except it's not more open.

The problem is that most people still won't care. In fact, many people see locked-down hardware, and software too, as an advantage

If that were true Android never would have taken off: "App developers more bullish on Android than iOS"

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-09/app-developers-more-bullish-on-android-than-ios.aspx?storyid=37842

The users ultimately follow the apps. Just see how many exclusive titles Microsoft had to purchase in order to ensure XBOX's success. Only in this case the developers are driving the apps and they're choosing Android because its much more open.

Of course it can, especially combined with the new bounties on successful whistle-blowing : http://community.nasdaq.com/news/2010-08/whistleblower-law-could-payout-millions-for-tips-on-fraud.aspx?storyid=31840
That is at least $100,000 for you if the damages reach the lilliputian amount of 1 million dollars. I have seen dumber hobbies for interns at big companies...

I would consider the fact that most of management either have large amounts of stock they have bought or have been compensated with:

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=AAPL&selected=AAPL

Click on inside traders.

br/

>Ask any drone in a large company, Open Source is bad news because there are law suits against it.
There are lawsuits against every mega-tech company too.

IBM http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/ibm-faces-another-anti-trust-lawsuit-in-europe-over-mainframe-practices/

Microsoft http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20000597-75.html

Oracle http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201003291158dowjonesdjonline000278&title=rimini-street-files-countersuit-against-oracle

Lawsuits are practically a standard expense for most of these companies.

Microsoft is, was, and always will be about profit for shareholders

well, then, it has failed.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/chartingbasics.aspx?intraday=off&timeframe=10y&charttype=ohlc&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=on&index=&drilldown=off&symbol=GOOG&symbol=AAPL&symbol=MSFT&selected=MSFT

They already have plenty of money. This is a cash out. That's ok though, the internet tried to tar and feather me when I said Apple was going to turn iTunes into an HD movie rental service, and more recently, when I suggested they are building their own search technology in secret.

Their stock already tanked 7% on Friday. Watch what happens to GOOG on Monday.

Awesome, thanks. I dug a little harder and was able to get nasdaq give me what I wanted:

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/chartingbasics.aspx?intraday=off&timeframe=10y&charttype=ohlc&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=on&index=&drilldown=off&symbol=GOOG&symbol=AAPL&symbol=MSFT&selected=MSFT

Microsoft is a company that cannot "let go" of anything. Take .NET for example -- it is a miserable failure that they won't let die.

A few web sites that use .NET technology:

Costco - http://www.costco.com/
Crate & Barrel - http://www.crateandbarrel.com/
Home Shopping Network - http://www.hsn.com/
Buy.com - http://www.buy.com/
Dell - http://www.dell.com/
Nasdaq - http://www.nasdaq.com/
Virgin - http://www.virgin.com/
7-Eleven - http://www.7-eleven.com/
Carnival Cruise Lines - http://www.carnival.com/
L'Oreal - http://www.loreal.com/
Remax - http://www.remax.com/
Monster Jobs - http://www.monster.com/
USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/
ComputerJobs.com - http://computerjobs.com/
Match.com - http://www.match.com/
National Health Services (UK) - http://www.nhs.uk/
CarrerBuilder.com - http://www.careerbuilder.com/
Newegg http://newegg.com/
Geico http://geico.com/
Capital One http://capitalone.com/
Zecco http://zecco.com/

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe you should tell all those sites that .NET is a miserable failure? Or if you were just (successfully) karmawhoring, I am sorry to interrupt the circle jerk on here.

According to this, they are in fact shutting down.

I personally run/have run many huge enterprise apps on .NET. It's actually a pretty good platform if you know what you're doing.

Don't take my word for it, though.

When I googled for what you asked to google, I found this list of sites running ASP.NET.

Costco - http://www.costco.com/
Crate & Barrel - http://www.crateandbarrel.com/
Home Shopping Network - http://www.hsn.com/
Buy.com - http://www.buy.com/
Dell - http://www.dell.com/
Nasdaq - http://www.nasdaq.com/
Virgin - http://www.virgin.com/
7-Eleven - http://www.7-eleven.com/
Carnival Cruise Lines - http://www.carnival.com/
L'Oreal - http://www.loreal.com/
The White House - http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Remax - http://www.remax.com/
Monster Jobs - http://www.monster.com/
USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/
ComputerJobs.com - http://computerjobs.com/
Match.com - http://www.match.com/
National Health Services (UK) - http://www.nhs.uk/
CarrerBuilder.com - http://www.careerbuilder.com/
Newegg http://newegg.com/
Geico http://geico.com/
Capital One http://capitalone.com/
Zecco http://zecco.com/

Maybe you should tell those sites that .NET is a unproven technology? Or will you try to argue that these are not huge enterprise apps? Just because you want something to be true(or maybe you were just karma whoring) doesn't make it true. C# is a better language than Java, though each one has it's strengths. And even conceding your point(I don't) that Java is faster, speed is not everything. Or we would all be coding in assembly or machine code.

Those that are ahead of the curve usually get burned at the stake.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200908051805dowjonesdjonline000841

While technically correct, a subsidy is more commonly used to describe an outright grant of money, with no requirement to pay it back. Such as the government subsidizing PBS, or the Arts programs, or giving grants for medical research. A loan guarantee, which is what the article is talking about, is not what most people would call a subsidy.

Yes, the article does mention a loan guaranty but it also says tax subsidies are used. It also says that because of the large upfront capital costs, "10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine", nuclear power has to be "substantially cheaper than coal- or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market." Notice how it also says that in China, France, India, and Russia, which do not have the regulations the US does industry does not decide what gets built, that the governments do. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

one thing is it does not say anything about is cost overruns. In a thread about another article someone said how nuclear power in Finland is profitable. However CNN has an article, "POWER POINTS: Cost Concerns Loom Over US Nuclear Revival", about how a power plant's construction cost have been overrun. The plant is being built by France's Areva S.A., which is owned by the French government, has a "budget overrun so far at about $2.16 billion." NASDAQ, you know the US stock exchange, has an article by Dow Jones on it's website. "Study Warns Of Cost Overruns At Proposed Reactors" by Steve Gelsi has this as it's first paragraph:
"A new academic study warns the cost of building nuclear power plants will likely come in at the high end of current industry estimates of $5 billion to $8 billion each. It also warned it would be cheaper for the U.S. to instead focus on energy efficiency and alternative sources such as wind and solar."
Greenchange has the article "Cost overruns plague nuclear renaissance in Finland" about Finland's cost overruns. And there are many more.

You could also say that solar technology is highly subsidized by the government, and otherwise isn't profitable.

Solar Financing, Subsidies, and Incentives

Notice how the guide you link to says "It's a little-known fact that governments subsidize the petroleum industry. In the U.S., for example (according to sources), between 5 and 10 billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money goes to the petroleum industry. Less than 500 million a year goes to renewables." Sure renewable energy sources get subsidies but those subsidies are a small fraction of the subsides coal, nuclear, and petroleum get. Without those subsidies alternatives like solar and wind could very well be cost competitive.

YouTube has the video of Rep Edward Markey's "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" speech. In it he details the subsidies he included in a bill he submitted. He starts by says that over the past years the nuclear industry has received $125 billion in subsidies whereas solar and wind combined have only received $5 billion. Nuclear power got 21 tymes as much taxpayer dollars as solar and wind.

Falcon

As an addendum, let me pose a hypothetical situation. Let's say you're on the board of directors of $BIGCORP. You have strong reason to believe that $BIGCORP's share are undervalued on the open market. Wouldn't you want to grab some of those undervalued shares for your own personal portfolio (when you're legally able to, that is, such as right after quarterly results postings so you're not guilty of insider trading) ?

Savvy traders should look at whether the board / executives of $BIGCORP to get a realistic look at how those executives truly feel about the shares. Take a look at the insider holdings for MSFT. See any large buybacks by the board members themselves? Didn't think so.

Considering that the parent company of Time Warner is the same as Warner Music and Warner Bros,...

Please consider again, as the Warner Music Group is now a totally separate entity, which was clearly spun off from the Time Warner group several years ago, and its stock has lost something like 1,500% of its valuation in the last two years. (from $30 a share to $1.50, although it's bounced back a bit since then, currently at $2.89)

Time Warner most likely still remained a minority shareholder in WMG, but IMHO they have other far more pressing matters to address at this time.

z.

Slashdot is owned by SourceForge, Inc (formerly VA Linux), an Internet media company that owns several sites like Linux.com, Freshmeat, and Thinkgeek. It's a publicly traded company with a CEO, SEC filings, and NASDAQ ticker symbol. SourceForge doesn't seem like a heartless corporation to me, they've done a lot of great things for the open source community and have generally stuck to their values, but as a public company they need to satisfy their investors (as seen in a recent management change).

Slashdot is owned by SourceForge, Inc (formerly VA Linux), an Internet media company that owns several sites like Linux.com, Freshmeat, and Thinkgeek. It's a publicly traded company with a CEO, SEC filings, and NASDAQ ticker symbol. SourceForge doesn't seem like a heartless corporation to me, they've done a lot of great things for the open source community and have generally stuck to their values, but as a public company they need to satisfy their investors (as seen in a recent management change).

As are other game company's stock. Yet revenues are up - EA's last quarter was up 40% year over year from FY08 and 15% from FY07.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/revenueepssummary.aspx?symbol=ERTS&selected=ERTS

If you're going to try to use a company's financials to prove a point, you should at least have a basic understanding of those financials, and use USEFUL numbers (here's a useful hint: in this market, stock value is hardly a useful indicator of a company's success)

You're right, I threw an off-the-cuff response out there to the specific claim by the parent poster that Apple can run on $2B. That poster seemed to go down the software-only path, but let's step back and look at the numbers.

I quoted $7.5B, and that's only the three months to Jun-08. Let's pull the data out.

$3.6B in Mac hardware
$1.7B in iPod hardware
$0.8B in music products & services (iTunes store)
$0.4B in iPhone products and services
$0.4B in peripherals
$0.5B in software sales

(from Nasdaq, about halfway down)

That's $3.6B at risk. I threw $5B out there, but I included stuff I shouldn't have. Still, we have $3.6B on the table as being at risk. Sure, there might be no change but there is a chance that the entire amount will drop from the revenue.

The point is that we cannot know what will happen to that revenue.

Go to any large business and try to make a business case to put just under half their revenue at risk. You'll need absolutely rock-solid data, a business case so clear and bulletproof that there can be no room for doubt.

We certainly don't have that here. We don't even have agreement on the basics.

To your disclosure - I don't like the idea of Psystar selling modified versions of OS X. If they were selling a PC with a boxed copy of OS X and didn't do the installation, they couldn't be touched by any law in the land. Selling pre-installed machines with hacked software is another matter entirely.

I'm not trying either. I find it difficult to get excited about something that will be copyrighted for twice my lifetime, closed source, proprietary, and probably patented. It would be like giving up a child for adoption... even if code went to a good home with advantages and utility I could never give the algorithm, I'd always hate myself for giving up all my rights to MY baby...

As for the language recommendation... I've noticed this same issue myself. This million dollar prize really is peanuts to these guys. They spent $71 million on R&D last year, yet they have the crappy recommendation system they have now. As far as they're concerned, a million bucks is dirt cheap. Personally, if I were this guy and I somehow "won" I would try to refuse the prize in order to negotiate a better deal.... meh, It'd never work... they probably have a clause that voids your rights just for entering.

People are selling AMD stock short, betting it will go down. To make money, they need the price of AMD stock to drop.

Often a company's stock price reflects market manipulation rather than any sensible estimate of the true value of the company. This Slashdot story is very likely to drive the price down, as short sellers want. Check the price after the market opens.

When AMD integrates ATI video with AMD CPUs, the resulting combination is likely to be very competitive. AMDs technical prospects seem good to me, although I have not done a thorough analysis. Remember that we are no longer in a CPU speed race; CPUs are fast enough now for the average user.

NOK, AAPL, MOT.

It has strings attached, as usual, in order to render it useless in any true Open Source project, but does its job of promoting a non existent support of Open Source from Microsoft.

IMO, the only reason for that PR is clearly showed in the nice graph at this page

Acacia = "InterActive Group" = "Arrowhead Research" (= Msft?)

"On May 29, 2007, we [Arrowhead Research] sold to certain institutional and accredited investors an aggregate of 2,849,446 shares of common stock (the "Private Placement Shares") at a per share purchase price of $5.78, and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 712,363 shares of common stock (the "Warrant Shares"), exercisable at $7.06 per share, in the Private Placement. Two investment vehicles of York Capital Management, a stockholder holding greater than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, participated in the offering."

http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u4d4r.htm

"Arrowhead Research" refers to Arrowhead Research Corporation, a Delaware corporation and formerly known as InterActive Group, Inc."

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/symbols.asp?exchange=NGM&start=A&sort=cap&Type=0

"The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Arrowhead Research Corporation (a Delaware Corporation), formally InterActive Group, Inc., and Arrowhead Research Corporation (a California Corporation), a wholly-owned subsidiary. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
. . . .
In October 2003, in connection with an initial private placement of Common Stock, the Company [Arrowhead Research] accepted 80,255 shares of Acacia Research Corporation, valued at $500,000, and $500,000 cash in exchange for 1,000,000 units. The shares are carried on the financial statements as marketable securities. See Note 3."

http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/05/17/0001015402-04-002107/Section7.asp

"On May 29, 2007, we [Arrowhead Research] sold to certain institutional and accredited investors an aggregate of 2,849,446 shares of common stock (the "Private Placement Shares") at a per share purchase price of $5.78, and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 712,363 shares of common stock (the "Warrant Shares"), exercisable at $7.06 per share, in the Private Placement. Two investment vehicles of York Capital Management, a stockholder holding greater than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, participated in the offering."

http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u4d4r.htm

The solution to this is to maintain a "shitlist" of companies that have been known to use deceptive marketing practices, or other abuses

Cool... I found someone already maintaining a pretty good alphabetical list.

-

You asked how to make your product a disaster by selling a million units. I told you how. Units sold is about as effective as MHz as a measure of performance. It doesn't tell the whole story, and the story in Apple's case will be told in another week or so. Q4 conference call is due soon. AAPL is going to get murdered if their core business doesn't make up for the slack iPhone sales.

Do you think they even managed a million units this quarter? If they only moved 730,000 units in 72 days I'd be really surprised. It is looking like 900,000 in 90 days to me. Maybe they had some explosive demand for iPhones in the last half of the September, but I wouldn't bank on Apple having sold one million phones this quarter. Even if they do, it's still bad news. They did it at $399 per unit. Any way you look at it, it's a major revenue shortfall.

Bad news for a company hoping to sell 10 million in the first year. I'm sure Steve will dress it up though and say 1.2 Million since the debut, because 5-10% under one million is going to sound really bad for a company with a 51 PE ratio. The only way they can maintain numbers like that is to maintain the "growth stock" image. You do remember how Wall Street received the news about the cube don't you?

Over the last 10 years AAPL has been an unreal performer. They're a f'ing stock market superstar. Nobody can touch that record. But I believe they will be taking their lumps with the iPhone. No need to argue about it, we'll know in a few more days.

I was looking forward to seeing them delisted from NASDAQ. Unfortunately, it looks like I'm going to have to wait 180 days to get that gratification. They filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on Sept. 14; I guess a company can still be listed on NASDAQ even though it's bankrupt!

trading is only halted for 1/2 hour upon filing. If they wait until the end of trading anyway, as I suspect they had since google news doesn't show any articles more than 1 hour old, then trading is effectively halted for the weekend.

Nasdaq will have sent a delisting notice, and will delist SCOX next Friday unless SCO requests a review hearing.

faq

GSM coverage is definitely not excellent in the central U.S. plains or the Rocky Mountains. There is coverage now on interstate highways and in cities and larger towns, but smaller towns and highway routes have spotty coverage or none at all. There were a handful of small telephone companies that sprung up to fill the void in the past few years. Two of the largest such have been recently acquired.

Western Wireless was acquired by Alltel.

AT&T recently acquired Dobson Communications (which was the largest vendor licensing the Cellular One brand). I think that the "new AT&T" realizes that Verizon will kick their ass if they don't start competing on the coverage front. Nobody can touch Verizon in the U.S. for actually getting a wireless signal in more places.

The AT&T coverage map is, ahem, optimistic, regarding its coverage in the plains states. The Dobson/Cellular One acquisition helps with this, but not with the rocky mountain states.

Here is a relatively honest assessment of GSM coverage in the western US: Cellular One coverage map (includes the Dobson network and all the other mom-and-pop licensees of the Cellular One brand).

The Alltel coverage map is also a little deceptive, because it mixes their GSM network in with their other network, but they provide much better GSM coverage in the west than anybody else, thanks to their acquisition of Western Wireless. Both T-Mobile and AT&T were asleep at the wheel and either should have acquired Western Wireless. It will be more difficult for AT&T to assemble a network which can rival Alltel or Verizon in the west. Fortunately, they are able to lease time on the Alltel network for their customers, as does T-Mobil. Oddly enough, Alltel does not provide GSM service to its own customers.

It's not clear that AT&T can fix this problem via acquisitions. Alltel already bought the company that AT&T should have acquired. What's left now is a whole bunch of relatively small players. AT&T will need to go on a major buying and building spree if they are really serious about providing nationwide cellular GSM coverage. They have been cherry picking the best (highest population density) markets for years, but they'll need to get serious about providing coverage to the rest of the country if they don't want the "I can't get an iPhone because AT&T doesn't offer service in my area" blogger chorus to drown out their efforts to promote the iPhone beyond the initial product launch. The stock valuations of AT&T and Alltel are interesting, too. AT&T has brand recognition, but they are themselves possibly an acquisition candidate.

So why does Google [yahoo.com] have a market cap of $146 billion?

Do they have more fat billions on Nasdaq? Am I missing something?

Alright, someone is making this judgement with a paintbrush when they should be using a calculator.

Apple doesn't have enough cash to buy AMD and currently has only $9.8bn in assets. They also have $6.4bn in long and short term debts. AMD would cost about $7.3bn to buy based on today's market cap. Apple would have to pay about a 20% premium to that at least, making it about $8.8bn. To then pay off AMD's debts, $9.4bn including the latest senior note offering, Apple would need that ammount of cash in excess (or at least enough to make a dent.)

The biggest reason an AMD buyout could make sense would be: A) Apple and AMD do business with each other, and thereby can be more tightly integrated so that the pair profit more than the parts. B) Apple has the cash to pay off AMD debts so that AMD can quit getting slaughtered on interest payments ever quarter. Apple could do business with AMD, but its not likely to streamline any part of the production process for either company. There is the notion that an Apple halo could be beneficial for AMD (DAAMIT). There is the unlikely possibility that Apple management would bring new life into AMD and all the sudden AMD would get twice as much innovation done and all their chips would have white substrates that collect fingerprints and come with click-wheels.

You can see where I'm going with this. Apple doesn't have the cash to buy AMD and then turn around and pay off the debt significantly. The two combined companies would together still have so much debt that instead of just AMD being at risk of bankrupcty, Apple would be dragged in as well.

That said, if you're a level 75 venture capitalist with full merits and $18bn floating around, buying AMD isn't a bad idea. The gains in interest would instantly boost AMD's earnings by hundreds of millions per year, not to mention create a stonger DAAMIT to continue exploiting the natural tendency towards duopololy in this competitive, capital intensive industry.

Buy AMD. Make it healthy. Sell it back to the street for three times what you paid in ten years. Then go find something to do with $54bn dollars.

Alright, someone is making this judgement with a paintbrush when they should be using a calculator.

Apple doesn't have enough cash to buy AMD and currently has only $9.8bn in assets. They also have $6.4bn in long and short term debts. AMD would cost about $7.3bn to buy based on today's market cap. Apple would have to pay about a 20% premium to that at least, making it about $8.8bn. To then pay off AMD's debts, $9.4bn including the latest senior note offering, Apple would need that ammount of cash in excess (or at least enough to make a dent.)

The biggest reason an AMD buyout could make sense would be: A) Apple and AMD do business with each other, and thereby can be more tightly integrated so that the pair profit more than the parts. B) Apple has the cash to pay off AMD debts so that AMD can quit getting slaughtered on interest payments ever quarter. Apple could do business with AMD, but its not likely to streamline any part of the production process for either company. There is the notion that an Apple halo could be beneficial for AMD (DAAMIT). There is the unlikely possibility that Apple management would bring new life into AMD and all the sudden AMD would get twice as much innovation done and all their chips would have white substrates that collect fingerprints and come with click-wheels.

You can see where I'm going with this. Apple doesn't have the cash to buy AMD and then turn around and pay off the debt significantly. The two combined companies would together still have so much debt that instead of just AMD being at risk of bankrupcty, Apple would be dragged in as well.

That said, if you're a level 75 venture capitalist with full merits and $18bn floating around, buying AMD isn't a bad idea. The gains in interest would instantly boost AMD's earnings by hundreds of millions per year, not to mention create a stonger DAAMIT to continue exploiting the natural tendency towards duopololy in this competitive, capital intensive industry.

Buy AMD. Make it healthy. Sell it back to the street for three times what you paid in ten years. Then go find something to do with $54bn dollars.

Does NASDAQ accept reverse stock splits as a method to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement?
Yes. NASDAQ views reverse stock splits as an acceptable method to regain compliance.

How about here?

I looked over the NASDAQ continued listing requirements (page 5), and it looks like SCOX is doomed no matter what. The very first requirement is that stockholders' equity must be above $10M. According to SCOX's latest balance sheet, the stockholders' equity was $8.082M as of October 31, 2006. There is every reason to expect that it only went downhill from there.

Looks like the probationary period has gone to 180 days. My bad.

My question is: What's so evil about making profit out of your hard work?

I assume that most of us aren't independently wealthy. Even if you are, that money didn't just fall out of the sky. I'd hope that most of us aren't leeching off of the state. Unless you're at a public internet terminal right now, I shudder to think my tax dollars are paying for your computer and broadband connection.

Craigslist is a wonderful service, and god knows I'm a supporter of F/OSS-esque activities; however, this world runs on the concept that goods and services have value. (Yes, even if you happen to use those goods or services in conjunction with the magic box on your desk)

For instance:

Slashdot
How I view Slashdot
How I can run a program to view Slashdot
My magic box's brain

We can cry foul about the evils of money all day, but chances are you are spending or making it at this very moment.

I'll bet global methane emissions can be shown to track the gross sales of Taco Bell.

Hmmmm... their stock has climbed steadily since August. Perhaps the methane readings are due to their recent switch to Canola oil.

Just to reiterate what these scum are doing:

1. Buy some really cheap stock at a really cheap price.
2. Hype it to victims.
3. Sell it to victims at inflated prices. Pocket the profit.
4. Victims are now stuck with a worthless stock that they can only sell at a large loss.

They usually work for the pump and dumper. Everybody else gets screwed. That's why it's a scam.

The companies are real, and you can look them up on NASDAQ or Pink Sheets. I've looked a few of them up, and they all show an enormous spike in trading, a big spike in price, then a rapid fall.

While there are ways to make money on declining stock value ("short selling"), you can't do it with the stocks these filth are hyping.

...laura

I just looked one of the companies (the petroleum one) up on NASDAQ, and while their share price was up yesterday, then down today, the interesting thing is the way the stock has traded more in the last two days than in the entire previous year. By several orders of magnitude, in fact.

Until May this year the company was worth approximately nothing (10 cents a share). In the last two days they pumped it from $2.95 up to $10.10, then dumped it down to $4.00. On 60,000-odd shares traded, somebody made a lot of money...and a lot of people got suckered. I suppose that's why these filth keep doing it. Sad.

You'd think somebody would notice, especially with zero real news about the company (I checked that too). But even in these economic times, 60,000 shares just doesn't make NASDAQ's most-active list.

...laura

But... your computer is a datacentre too, isn't it? Pfffffft.... Goodbye. (j/k)

Actually the value of the datacentre as a repository for your data has nothing to do with whether you're a startup or not. What matters is the integrity of the data centre itself (hardware guarantees implicit in design of the comps, strength of the infrastructure, DRP structure, and the physical site integrity itself) in combination with the financial guarantees offered by those backing the running of the site; operational funds held in escrow, insurance, resilent and trustworthy business model.

One good trick you can use in your assessment is to check the "Company News" on http://www.nasdaq.com/ if they're a listed company, or the parent company of the people backing them. If they're a barefoot operation contact them directly and ask. If the CEO responds, try to guess their age....

How much is SCO worth these days anyway,

A significant number of companies are having to restate past and current earnings (the latter is what is causing the delisting notices to go out, because the 10-Q for the most recent ended quarter has to also be restated) so given the situation, the flurry of delisting notices is not surprising. NASDAQ maintains a daily list of companies not in compliance with continued listing requirements; today's list (9/21) had about 70 or so companies delinquent on their quarterly or annual reports (10-Q and 10-K) to the SEC. Most of the other companies don't meet the minimum $1 bid price (a company's shares trading below $1 for more than thirty days are served a notice of intent to delist, and have 180 days to come back into compliance.

Other reasons that could result in a delisting letter from NASDAQ include failure to maintain:

• Minimum market value of publicly-held shares
• Minimum market value of listed securities
• Minimum number of market makers
• Minimum level of stockholders' equity
• Minimum level of total assets and/or total revenue
• Minimum net income from continuing operations
• Minimum number of publicly-held shares
• Minimum number of round-lot shareholders

Other notable companies that face delisting include nVidia, Autodesk, BEA Systems, CNET, Verisign, and the Cheesecake Factory. The reason? Delinquent 10-K or 10-Q filings.

that can get mired down any number of ways.

It surprised me. I thought the issue was dead, and RAMBUS had succeeded in their dirty tactics.

If I interpret this correctly, their share price is down 25% on the news.

You might be on to something.

Why would Dell making noise about this now?

You'd think their competitor had just announced something that Dell suddenly perceived as a threat...

You might be on to something.

Why would Dell making noise about this now?

You'd think their competitor had just announced something that Dell suddenly perceived as a threat...