Slashdot Mirror

Facebook IPO Crashes Nearly 10% After $42.05 Opening Price - and the Underwriters had to STEP IN, to prevent a free-fall in decline. That is - no matter what you'd spin it - a market manipulation.

Bubble, meet needle!

As far as market manipulations go this IPO may have been cleaner than others. There does not seem to have been an artificial shortage of stock designed to inflate the price. So far it looks like there was plenty of stock made available and that the opening price is matching the markets willingness to pay. Keep in mind that this has been a pretty bad week for the market and much of a stocks price reflects market risk and industry risk, it is not all about the company risk.

Whether an IPO is successful or not should not be judged by whether a day 1 speculator may a killing. Where the price goes in the coming months will define whether or not the IPO was successful.

Facebook IPO Crashes Nearly 10% After $42.05 Opening Price - and the Underwriters had to STEP IN, to prevent a free-fall in decline. That is - no matter what you'd spin it - a market manipulation.

Bubble, meet needle!

Your link doesn't support your statement at all. Do you have any actual proof of your claim?

Facebook IPO Crashes Nearly 10% After $42.05 Opening Price - and the Underwriters had to STEP IN, to prevent a free-fall in decline. That is - no matter what you'd spin it - a market manipulation.

Bubble, meet needle!

People like you must not drive far enough to even need a car. The numbers for a solar panel just don't work.

Or use the heater or air conditioner (25% of battery), or use sound, gps and other gadgets (2.5%), etc.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/07/27/leaf-electric-car-nissan-reveals-details/

Trimming a bloated state government would have been a disaster. I'm sure the state's pension problems will just magically disappear. Jerry brown is probably trying to figure out how to stop residents and businesses from leaving the state if it is to dodge their high taxes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250822189252384.html

...thourougly debunked talking points

Dubunked? Talking points - as if that somehow means something? Do tell. What thouroughly debunked "talking points"? The scientific method? The fact that the UN is on their 5th model? The fact that CO2 is clearly behind the heat curve?
Ok, Scientific method - Go ahead and try to debunk that one.

UN's 5th model - yup, it is. More depending on how you count. How can you debunk fact? Each time it was revised down. Here's a rundown from the first one - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?&grcc=99999&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion . How the crazy MMGW crowd has been wrong time and time again - http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html (not for faint of heart. If you want the truth, it's there.)

CO2 is clearly behind the curve? Just look at the graph. How can you debunk what you can see with the naked eye? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . That's the plot they don't like to show you. Ok, say you don't understand that, it's related. Then look at this real life plot with temperatures and CO2 - http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e65ad371970c-pi . Tough to be a true believer in mmgw if you know the facts.

Lastly, I have yet to read or hear anyone that was able to explain how from 1992 to 1993 Global warming went from something that is happening to Man is doing it? No scientific note, not even a foot note. It was just inserted in by Mr. Strong. If you want to even pretend that you have a point, explain how we get a conclusion like that without any scientific fact? Try as you might, you won't find why in that report.

Clearly not what I expected as a response from you. As I said and still say - if I'm wrong explain why. You don't have to do it directly. Just show me where they show that CO2 actually "traps" as they call it - Heat. Keep in mind "It's obvious" isn't scientific. Neither is anecdotal evidence. Science demands reproduceable, definitive results from an experiment. All doubt would go away at that point. Good luck with that, you'll need it.

Please remind me what Apple's stance on browsers for their iDevices is.

They allow all browsers, so long as they use the provided rendering and Javascript engines, or else use no engine at all (e.g. Opera Mini for iOS). I'm not suggesting that's ideal or good. I'm simply responding to your request for a reminder.

What's Apple's share again? At least 90%, you say?

68% of the tablet market share, based on numbers from last week. That's down quite a bit year-over-year, thanks in large part to the first viable competitor: the Kindle Fire.

What's Microsoft's share? 0% in ARM tablets?

Relevance? Microsoft is being looked at because they have an existing antitrust ruling against them that specifically forbids them from engaging in certain practices that are dangerously close to the ones being discussed here. It has nothing to do with their market share. It has everything to do with the question of whether or not they are breaking the stipulations in the ruling against them.

Side note: Technically, I don't think they are, since the stipulations specified Intel processors, but I can imagine legislators wanting to argue that's just a technicality.

Long story short, it may not be fair, but it does make sense.

And another person "goes galt" and escapes the looters.

Meanwhile thousands of people are applying for "investor visas" to acquire US citizenship.
Bunch of dummies those guys, each of them throwing away at least half-a-million on "reverse galts."

It seems to me that it is not only Saverin who is not mindful of and not caring about the health of the nation and the people around him. Judging from the articles linked below, it seems that the entire of Facebook is not healthy:

Facebook's reputation in the mainstream media is rapidly getting worse. Facebook is getting a bad reputation partly because of articles like these:

Worst company: Facebook was a semi-finalist in the April 2012 competition to be voted the worst company in the United States .

Facebook follows its business rules? Not always. The April 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal story, Selling You on Facebook, says:

"Facebook requires apps [mobile phone software applications] to ask permission before accessing a user's personal details. However, a user's friends aren't notified if information about them is used by a friend's app. An examination of the apps' activities also suggests that Facebook occasionally isn't enforcing its own rules on data privacy."

There's more like that in the article.

Facebook tracks every web page you visit that has a Facebook button (using Javascript). For example, if you visit the Oregonian Newspaper web site, Facebook tracks every story you visit, even if you don't click on the "Like" button. There are ways to prevent that (using Firefox with the NoScript add-on), but most people don't know about them.

Companies pay people to click on Facebook "Like" buttons. The number of Facebook "Likes" doesn't give any indication of popularity.

On December 9, 2011 it was necessary to click on a Facebook "Like" button to be allowed to see Fry's Electronics ads.

Do 86,688 people (on April 9, 2012) really like Firestone Complete Auto Care, or did the company offer something to be "liked"?

A few problems with Facebook: Richard Stallman wrote a short list of things wrong with Facebook.

How much information does Facebook keep? Read the December 13, 2011 article, Twenty Something Asks Facebook For His File And Gets It - All 1,200 Pages.

What do people in other countries think? The May 14, 2010 article, Facebook is not your friend gives one idea.

The June 15, 2011 article, The End of Facebook, and the June 14, 2011 article, Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook? give others.

Most people don't understand the problems that may occur. For example, consider the March 28, 2012 article, Teacher's aide says 'no access' to her Facebook; now legal battle with school.

This April 4, 2012 article would be funny if it weren't so sad: Woman arrested for assault based on Facebook photo. Quotes:

"Aston ... was charged ... based solely on a Fac

Meanwhile, Chinese try to escape to the US:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577393841014313050.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I will admit that at least some of us basically troll for fun by denying part 1 and part 2 above, because we hate the "solutions" to part 3.

Yeah, so this isn't very productive. Maybe try to figure out which solutions are actually good and push for those? Remember, problems don't go away when we don't like the solutions.

Usually part 3 is the establishment of a neo-pol pot regime, or national socialism, or some financial scam to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, or most commonly meaningless feel good frippery that will do absolutely nothing but "raise awareness".

I'm curious incidentally which solutions you think fall into these categories. I agree that quite a bit falls into the feel good frippery category. Godwin's law aside, last I checked no one was advocating large scale genocide as a solution. At the very minimum, burning people in ovens would make more CO2.

I''m particularly interested into which category you put the most widely suggested method of dealing with CO2 - cap and trade. Cap and trade is a system that has worked quite well for other pollutants. For example, there's clear evidence that cap and trade has worked well in dealing with sulfur dioxide, both reducing emissions and having little negative economic impact. See for example http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf and http://www.jstor.org/stable/2647032 (although it certainly has had its bumps especially due to conflicting court cases and legislation. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704258604575360821005676554.html. Cap and trade works, since it hybridizes government regulation with market solutions. It estimates the cost of the pollutant to society and then lets the market figure out the most efficient way of keeping the pollutant down. There's a reason that George H. W. Bush helped get cap-and-trade in the Clean Air Act and that many see it is as example of a successful government regulation http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17cap.html?pagewanted=all.

I'm also curious as to what category you put improvements to the electric grid such as adding grid storage and smart grids. All of these can have real, substantial impact. And in the case of grid improvements, they have substantial other benefits as well. There isn't going to be one magic bullet solution to all our CO2 problems or a magic bullet to solve all our energy problems, and certainly not one that will solve both. But there are real, substantial steps that can be taken that don't involve loss of liberties. Comparisons to Nazis are unhelpful hyperbole.

The debate is over? Are you lying or just ignorant?

Facebook's reputation with the mainstream media is rapidly getting worse. Facebook is getting a bad reputation partly because of articles like these:

Worst company: Facebook was a semi-finalist in the April 2012 competition to be voted the worst company in the United States .

Facebook follows its business rules? Not always. The April 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal story, Selling You on Facebook, says:

"Facebook requires apps [mobile phone software applications] to ask permission before accessing a user's personal details. However, a user's friends aren't notified if information about them is used by a friend's app. An examination of the apps' activities also suggests that Facebook occasionally isn't enforcing its own rules on data privacy."

There's more like that in the article.

Facebook tracks every web page you visit that has a Facebook button (using Javascript). For example, if you visit the Oregonian Newspaper web site, Facebook tracks every story you visit, even if you don't click on the "Like" button. There are ways to prevent that (using Firefox with the NoScript add-on), but most people don't know about them.

Companies pay people to click on Facebook "Like" buttons. The number of Facebook "Likes" doesn't give any indication of popularity.

On December 9, 2011 it was necessary to click on a Facebook "Like" button to be allowed to see Fry's Electronics ads.

Do 86,688 people (on April 9, 2012) really like Firestone Complete Auto Care, or did the company offer something to be "liked"?

A few problems with Facebook: Richard Stallman wrote a short list of things wrong with Facebook.

How much information does Facebook keep? Read the December 13, 2011 article, Twenty Something Asks Facebook For His File And Gets It - All 1,200 Pages.

What do people in other countries think? The May 14, 2010 article, Facebook is not your friend gives one idea.

The June 15, 2011 article, The End of Facebook, and the June 14, 2011 article, Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook? give others.

Most people don't understand the problems that may occur. For example, consider the March 28, 2012 article, Teacher's aide says 'no access' to her Facebook; now legal battle with school.

This April 4, 2012 article would be funny if it weren't so sad: Woman arrested for assault based on Facebook photo. Quotes:

"Aston ... was charged ... based solely on a Facebook photo and a generic description offered to police by the victim's boyfriend."

Defending herself required a "... court appearance and several thousand dollars in legal bills."


Open source will prevail. E

Seriously, show me the debtors prisons..

Yes, it couldn't possibly be adversaries, and people want to do harm to the United States, in an environment where people like you firmly believe that everything must be a "false flag" operation designed to somehow take away your rights.

...

Or, it could be this:

Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf

Occupying the Information High Ground: Chinese Capabilities for Computer Network Operations and Cyber Espionage
http://www.uscc.gov/RFP/2012/USCC%20Report_Chinese_CapabilitiesforComputer_NetworkOperationsandCyberEspionage.pdf

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-18/chinese-espionage-campaign-targets-u-dot-s-dot-space-technology

Report: Hackers Seized Control of Computers in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/jet-propulsion-lab-hacked/
http://oig.nasa.gov/congressional/FINAL_written_statement_for_%20IT_%20hearing_February_26_edit_v2.pdf

Chinese hackers took control of NASA satellite for 11 minutes
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/chinese-hackers-took-control-of-nasa-satellite-for-11-minutes-20111119/

Chinese hackers suspected of interfering with US satellites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/27/chinese-hacking-us-satellites-suspected

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing

Yes, it couldn't possibly be adversaries, and people want to do harm to the United States, in an environment where people like you firmly believe that everything must be a "false flag" operation designed to somehow take away your rights.

...

Or, it could be this:

Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf

Occupying the Information High Ground: Chinese Capabilities for Computer Network Operations and Cyber Espionage
http://www.uscc.gov/RFP/2012/USCC%20Report_Chinese_CapabilitiesforComputer_NetworkOperationsandCyberEspionage.pdf

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-18/chinese-espionage-campaign-targets-u-dot-s-dot-space-technology

Report: Hackers Seized Control of Computers in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/jet-propulsion-lab-hacked/
http://oig.nasa.gov/congressional/FINAL_written_statement_for_%20IT_%20hearing_February_26_edit_v2.pdf

Chinese hackers took control of NASA satellite for 11 minutes
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/chinese-hackers-took-control-of-nasa-satellite-for-11-minutes-20111119/

Chinese hackers suspected of interfering with US satellites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/27/chinese-hacking-us-satellites-suspected

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing

Microsoft has historically been very aggressive towards their competitors. They've frequently crushed competitors. Their users, who are their customers and pay them money, they treat reasonably well.

Google, on the other hand, focuses their aggression against their users.. Google's tries to collect as much info about its users as it can, which is a lot. Then they resell that data to advertisers. This has them in trouble with the EU privacy authorities and most of the US state attorneys general.

Then there's the drug dealing. Google had to admit guilt to multiple felonies related to advertising drugs. They had to pay a $500,000,000 penalty to avoid felony prosecution.

And no, it wasn't just "Canadian pharmacies". The FBI became involved because some drug dealer they were chasing ran an online pharmacy racket on the side and advertised with Google. The FBI then ran a sting operation against Google, running more and more outrageous ads for illegal drugs. Google execs met with the FBI's con man, who was pretending to be an agent for a Mexican drug lord. They extended him credit for AdWords ads. The U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island says Larry Page knew all about this.

Microsoft has had antitrust problems, but nothing like that.

Microsoft has historically been very aggressive towards their competitors. They've frequently crushed competitors. Their users, who are their customers and pay them money, they treat reasonably well.

Google, on the other hand, focuses their aggression against their users.. Google's tries to collect as much info about its users as it can, which is a lot. Then they resell that data to advertisers. This has them in trouble with the EU privacy authorities and most of the US state attorneys general.

Then there's the drug dealing. Google had to admit guilt to multiple felonies related to advertising drugs. They had to pay a $500,000,000 penalty to avoid felony prosecution.

And no, it wasn't just "Canadian pharmacies". The FBI became involved because some drug dealer they were chasing ran an online pharmacy racket on the side and advertised with Google. The FBI then ran a sting operation against Google, running more and more outrageous ads for illegal drugs. Google execs met with the FBI's con man, who was pretending to be an agent for a Mexican drug lord. They extended him credit for AdWords ads. The U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island says Larry Page knew all about this.

Microsoft has had antitrust problems, but nothing like that.

'Remember what Rahm Emanuel said; "Never let a good emergency go to waste."'

Can you imagine any other, perhaps less insidious, interpretation of what he meant by that?

Well, here's the context. You decide.

From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html (no paywall/registration)

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

This opportunity isn't lost on the new president and his team. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms.

So, I think it's just one way they see to move their various agendas forward. Whether one considers it "insidious" largely depends on if you care more for honesty & integrity from our government and elected officials, or for moving a partisan agenda forward by any and all means available.

Nice to see that /. group-think moderation (I don't like your opinions/beliefs==Troll-mod, not a discussion opportunity) is at work on my first post in this thread. The Left on /. rarely disappoints. It seems they've never met an opinion or belief other than their own that doesn't require silencing, yelling down/over, or otherwise shutting down.

Strat
 

The EPA will get it's own SWAT team.

Eh ,why not? The NOAA has one. In fact the EPA might already have one. Guns and badges for everyone. Makes 'em feel all important and stuff

Why not, DuPont has Xe/Blackwater, the Gutterment has the NDAA. All the American citizen has, is the vote, for all the good that it does. The only person we can look up to is the elected Sheriff and look what THEY (The Hierarchy Enslaving You) are doing to Arpaio.

The EPA will get it's own SWAT team.

Eh ,why not? The NOAA has one. In fact the EPA might already have one. Guns and badges for everyone. Makes 'em feel all important and stuff

Again, which of his positions do you find extreme?

Well, here's a couple:
1. Return to a gold standard. The vast majority of economists consider the gold standard to be a really really bad idea, because it leaves the government basically unable to mitigate the effects of economic crises.

2. Eliminating all social insurance programs, including Social Security. Public support for Social Security is somewhere between 65-85% (e.g. Wall Street Journal, AARP, neither exactly Democratic party shills).

You're also overextended and weakened financially from a protracted war in the Middle East. Yes, Russia is a poor nation, but China is their next door neighbour, holder of significant amounts of US debt, and also not so happy about your decadent western ideals.

Russia and China have some pretty polarized wants and needs. And 8% isn't all that significant.

It's stated on page 4 of the document, section E, article 1, just after the (a). The provision that communication over personal accounts may not occur between teachers and students is subject to an exception in the case of relatives.

+1 Insightful

Most people don't realize that we have such maze of laws that the average American breaks three laws a day, often without even knowing it.

the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Of course, the president of the APS later disagreed with that statement, "The statement does not declare...that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." Is the president right, or is the statement right?

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with the idea of catastrophic global warming. There are even more reasons to disagree with policy proposals like the one from Copenhagen, which was mainly transfer payments from wealthy countries to poor countries. How does that accomplish anything? But if you oppose that proposal, some people label you a denier. That is not science.

Furthermore, your assertion is horrible. Pointing out that, "there is not enough evidence" and then changing your position when new evidence comes out is GOOD science, not 'dishonest dissent.' The main reason you think they are not 'honest' is because you disagree with them, because I've seen a lot of data and careful analysis coming from 'dissenters.' Don't you feel dirty even calling them dissenters?

First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing

China Corporate

First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing

China Corporate

Russian/Indian stealth fighter: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/russia-50-stealth-fighter-unveiled-air-show/story?id=14315928

Chinese stealth fighter: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808704576061674166905408.html

You're right. the F22 was designed during the cold war. And that's the problem. The design is nearly 30 years old. Know that line about how tech just gets easier and more widespread over time? The F22 is only JUST NOW entering service....around the same time that the countries that pose the biggest threat to us are also getting their first operational stealth jets up and running.

And they aren't taking 30 years to do it.

The situation isn't different, that's a myth. You have two choices: develop the tech to stay on top of the pyramid first, or play catch up after someone else does. The Chinese and Russians aren't catching up...they have CAUGHT UP.

If you don't think we need the F22 or its ilk you are a sadly mistaken fool. F15s have structural problems now after nearly 40 years. F14s are retired. F18s dont have the same air superiority capability as dedicated platforms and are likewise old (and most of the Super Hornets are not new airframes, but upgraded geriatrics). F16s are starting to develop issues too.

According to the article below, the total will come to at least $605 million over three years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577375502392129654.html

Just a suggestion, but this time try having lifeboat space for every passenger, not every other passenger?

As history teaches us, the reason the Titanic sinking was a disaster, and not just a misfortune was that it had enough lifeboats for the government regulations of the day, which is to say, one person-space in a lifeboat for every two passengers.

Just build Titanic III at the same time, and have it cruise alongside empty.

If Titanic II starts sinking, leave the buffet, grab your luggage, stroll across the walkway to Titanic III, find your cabin (you'll keep the same cabin number) and Bob's your uncle.

Just a suggestion, but this time try having lifeboat space for every passenger, not every other passenger?

As history teaches us, the reason the Titanic sinking was a disaster, and not just a misfortune was that it had enough lifeboats for the government regulations of the day, which is to say, one person-space in a lifeboat for every two passengers.

In reality, the lower classes cover the tax burden, while the large corporations enjoy benefits.

That's an interesting angle on things:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576299560728821804.html

C//

Billionaires don' like taxes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577291450562940874.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Texas Billionaire Doles Out Election's Biggest Checks

How many billions can one person hoard? Thats enough money to wipe their ass with a million or so dollars a day for life. Poor people are a waste of profit, so it is encouraged to push it all into big bank accounts to keep it safe from the poor. Thank the gods the rich keep making money, to keep it away from people like me, who take food stamps, and scroung for meds.

After the first billion the rich should pay taxes at 100% just to get bragging rights! Its just about ego masturbation after the first Billion anyway. How about they pay their share and quit milking us for profit, and let us keep our own money in the first place. If your company has more than a billion dollars in profits, you need to double your workers pay (rinse and repeat).

I've done a little researching on the A330's sensor system, and here is what I have found. Firstly, this article describes pilot union concerns about the official report, and details some interesting facts about the stall warning system. Specifically, the stall warning system on the A330 sounded for 50 consecutive seconds before ceasing. This was apparently due to the computer system automatically turning off the warning once the plane had dropped below 70 miles per hour, since that speed was supposed to be far outside the operating parameters of the plane. When the pilots finally pointed the nose down and gained airspeed, the stall warning began to sound again.

Here is another very interesting and authoritative article on the specifics of the A330 stall and angle of attack systems. The A330 does in fact use an angle of attack vane as pictured in the linked article. Interestingly, according to the article, the angle of attack is not actually displayed clearly or at all in the cockpit. This seems to me to be a gross design deficiency in the A330.

So, here is how I see it. The airspeed pitots were almost certainly frozen, causing the pilots and the computer to lose knowledge of the speed of the air over the aircraft. However, the angle of attack indicator was based on different system, a vane, which was likely not affected by ice. The stall warnings in the aircraft were likely based largely on the computers sensor inputs from the angle of attack indicators. Thus, the pilot should probably have known, based on the stall warnings that the airplane had a high angle of attack, which was resulting in a stall. They should probably have suspected their pitots were iced, and known that the stall system was based on different sensor inputs. However, the fact that the stall warnings stopped due to low airspeed, and the fact that the angle of attack reading was not easy or possible to see contributed to the pilots' mistaken control inputs. In other words, the pilots likely should have known better, but the design of the instrument display and warning system had significant flaws.

Just imagine if California didn't have all of these mandates. Dow 28,000,000: The Unbelievable Expectations of California's Pension System "

Problem solved, declares DHS Chief Janet Napolitano.

There have been a number of studies, and many articles, discussing this issue. You can Google as many as you care to read. I'll provide a link to a WSJ article discussing it today: Why Women Make Less

The article discusses the hours-worked issue extensively. It doesn't go into detail about the fewer hours worked other than to say it's mostly due to children, but other articles that break this "children/family" category down find it's due to a number of the variables I mentioned. The article also discusses the trend where women are starting to become the "richer sex".

1st: I see different here (Software Engineer being a TOP JOB CURRENTLY) -> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577336603334928584.html

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"It's also one of the reasons why software engineer was ranked No. 1 in a list of the best jobs of 2012 by http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated; "

---

Second: You only get STRONGER the more you code!

Experience is EVERYTHING...

I.E.-> I'd hire a 20++ yr. man over some "fresh outta academia" noob, anytime. Especially IF I wanted "quality work"... they're worth their weight in GOLD (and you get more "bang for the buck" from them, than say, the CIO generally).

Why?

Ok, practical example from my own life recently enough (the past year):

Last year, I tried Python & within a couple weeks I had most of what I needed to do in it down pat, for text manipulations... only way I could DO that was to have experience in programming in general!

(Python's an up & coming 'new' language, vs. say, my favs. in Object Pascal, C/C++, or Visual Basic & .NET variants thereof (VB.NET &/or C#))

JAVA too (reminds me of C# actually, or even C++ to a good extent except everything needs to be an object & set into memory 1st)...

Which I even took coursework in to "brush up my skillset"... I didn't study one BIT, and aced the course!

Was easy, once I knew C++ beforehand especially.

How?

Once you program in the Object.Property Method paradigm, they're ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME!

(It's the CONCEPTS you learn over time, via academia, & work, that matter most!)

* You learn techniques - & once you do? You ask yourself:

"I know how to do this problem, using this technique in (insert language here), now it's just a matter of syntax in this other language"

Put it this way:

I used to make extra monies porting various toolkits written in VB, Pascal/Delphi, or C/C++ variants because of what I just said above, porting them to OTHER LANGUAGES, was easy money!

(SO... once you know one pretty well (especially Pascal/Delphi or C++)? You pretty much know them all... & where it matters - in concepts!)

If you can "port" code from language-to-language? You KNOW what I am saying...

APK

P.S.=> THAT ONLY COMES WITH REAL-WORLD HANDS ON EXPERIENCE FOR YEARS... not from academia!

Man - This is an "old ploy" used by HR departments to underpay seasoned pros (who must be desperate for a job) & to hire on CHEAPLY PAID "noobs" outta academia... period!

... apk

The fact that Morgenthau was writing what he did 7 years into the New Deal is evidence enough for me... but it is hardly the only evidence that exists.

Do you really expect me to supply an analysis of Depression-era economics here on Slashdot?

But since you asked, here are a couple of sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258

No.
A negotiated restructuring is not the same as a default.
No matter how you slice it or play at words, it isn't the same.

Greece first passed a law lowering the trigger value for their collective action clause (CAC) from 95% to 66% in best Star Wars fashion: "I've altered our deal. Pray that I don't alter it further" then a few days later activated their CAC to force the participation from 83.5% to 95.7% - the remaining 4.3% was in foreign jurisdiction where they couldn't do this money grab. The result of this is that all rating companies declared this as a default because:

As we have previously stated, we may view an issuer's unilateral change of the original terms and conditions of an obligation as a de facto restructuring and thus a default by Standard & Poor's published definition

In short, Greece did not reach a voluntary deal. They changed the deal without the consent of the debt holders. The credit default swaps (CDS) were triggered. Nobody that matters (and hint: Greece doesn't matter) considers this anything but a default. In fact, they probably made it worse for themselves and any other country with national debt. Don't like the deal? Pass a law and make a new one...

No.
A negotiated restructuring is not the same as a default.
No matter how you slice it or play at words, it isn't the same.

Greece first passed a law lowering the trigger value for their collective action clause (CAC) from 95% to 66% in best Star Wars fashion: "I've altered our deal. Pray that I don't alter it further" then a few days later activated their CAC to force the participation from 83.5% to 95.7% - the remaining 4.3% was in foreign jurisdiction where they couldn't do this money grab. The result of this is that all rating companies declared this as a default because:

As we have previously stated, we may view an issuer's unilateral change of the original terms and conditions of an obligation as a de facto restructuring and thus a default by Standard & Poor's published definition

In short, Greece did not reach a voluntary deal. They changed the deal without the consent of the debt holders. The credit default swaps (CDS) were triggered. Nobody that matters (and hint: Greece doesn't matter) considers this anything but a default. In fact, they probably made it worse for themselves and any other country with national debt. Don't like the deal? Pass a law and make a new one...

Bruce Schneier hit it on the nose (and now, former TSA head Kip Hawley seems to agree: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335783535660546.html [wsj.com]) -- TSA is broken.

I kind of think that Mr Hawley learned some things when he debated Bruce. Because some of the arguments he makes in that article sound a lot like what Bruce Schneier has been saying for a while.

First, we all have to show picture ID and cryptically marked boarding passes
Next, we have to partially disrobe and empty our pockets
Then, we have to pass through a metal detector and a high-cost, dubiously useful (and even more dubiously safe) perv-scanner

You mean to tell me that TSA hasn't figured out, in cooperation with the airlines, of course, how to put some kind of cryptologic authenticator on boarding passes?
Perhaps they should have used some of the money they spent on perv-scanners to buy a computer, a bar code scanner and a crypto-hash generator for the boarding passes -- like they have at the gate when you board the airplane. They could scan the new high tech RealID[tm] licenses they forced on us, too, because you know they put an authenticator hash in them (right?)

Bruce Schneier hit it on the nose (and now, former TSA head Kip Hawley seems to agree: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335783535660546.html) -- TSA is broken.

The financial system in the U.S. is corrupt, in my opinion. There are many arrangements that help those in control steal from the average person.

Sooner or later, people will realize that Facebook promotes fake relationships. Unfortunately, that realization will apparently come after investors have lost billions in Facebook's IPO.

Facebook's reputation with the mainstream media is rapidly getting worse. Facebook is getting a bad reputation partly because of articles in the mainstream media like these:

Worst company: Facebook was a semi-finalist in the competition to be voted the worst company in the United States.

Facebook follows its business rules? Not always. The April 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal story, Selling You on Facebook, says:

"Facebook requires apps [mobile phone software applications] to ask permission before accessing a user's personal details. However, a user's friends aren't notified if information about them is used by a friend's app. An examination of the apps' activities also suggests that Facebook occasionally isn't enforcing its own rules on data privacy."

There's more like that in the article.

Facebook tracks every web page you visit that has a Facebook button (using Javascript). For example, if you visit the Oregonian Newspaper web site, Facebook tracks every story you visit, even if you don't click on the "Like" button. There are ways to prevent that (using Firefox with the NoScript add-on), but most people don't know about them.

Companies pay people to click on Facebook "Like" buttons. The number of Facebook "Likes" doesn't give any indication of popularity.

On December 9, 2011 it was necessary to click on a Facebook "Like" button to be allowed to see Fry's Electronics ads.

Do 86,688 people (on April 9, 2012) really like Firestone Complete Auto Care, or did the company offer something to be "liked"?

A few problems with Facebook: Richard Stallman wrote a short list of things wrong with Facebook.

How much information does Facebook keep? Read the December 13, 2011 article, Twenty Something Asks Facebook For His File And Gets It - All 1,200 Pages.

What do people in other countries think? The May 14, 2010 article, Facebook is not your friend gives one idea.

The June 15, 2011 article, The End of Facebook, and the June 14, 2011 article, Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook? give others.

Most people don't understand the problems that may occur. For example, consider the March 28, 2012 article, Teacher's aide says 'no access' to her Facebook; now legal battle with school.

This April 4, 2012 article would be funny if it weren't so sad: Woman arrested for assault based on Facebook photo. Quotes:

"Aston ... was charged ... based solely on a Facebook

Apple offered settlement deals to both Samsung *and* Motorala before enteringlitigation. Yes, even with Steve Jobs at the helm.

Perhaps you ought to check your facts before speaking ill of the dead.

Thanks for your blithe dismissal of that, but I think the many climate experts and scientific bodies who contributed to and reviewed it have a more credible opinion.

I know who wrote it. If you actually look at the citations, they were more than willing to include literature that is not scientific, not peer reviewed, and ultimately not accurate. They used computer models in ways that are shown by WG1 to be invalid. It is unfortunate but WG2 does not measure up to the level of scientificness found in WG1. It is my opinion that rather than trying to assess what would be the outcome of global warming, they instead were trying to list all problems that could reasonably happen as a result of global warming.

Well, if that's your best source for your opinions, it's no wonder you're labouring under this misapprehension. Maybe you should be listening [discovermagazine.com] to actual [wsj.com] climate [skepticalscience.com] scientists [wordpress.com]? Or if you just want to see a bunch of signatures, try this letter [sciencemag.org], signed by 255 scientists.

My best source of information is data. Beyond that, I trust one scientist who follows good scientific principles more than 1000 who don't. We've already established that many climate scientists do not follow good scientific principles. I discussed good scientific principles in this thread. If you plan on responding, please at least attempt to understand my position on the matter before doing so.

If you want us to believe that WG2's conclusions are inaccurate and can be safely ignored, you're going to need much more credible evidence than that.

No, I want you to read WG2 critically and see for yourself.

Incidentally, didn't you feel embarrassed to link to this article? The author is responding to an argument based on data, and the main thrust of his argument is an appeal to authority. In fact, the argument you made in this post is more powerful in its use of facts and data.

The scientific quality of WG2 is unfortunately rather low

Thanks for your blithe dismissal of that, but I think the many climate experts and scientific bodies who contributed to and reviewed it have a more credible opinion.

it's easier to just quote some scientists who are typically described as skeptics [wsj.com]

Well, if that's your best source for your opinions, it's no wonder you're labouring under this misapprehension. Maybe you should be listening to actual climate scientists? Or if you just want to see a bunch of signatures, try this letter, signed by 255 scientists.

If you want us to believe that WG2's conclusions are inaccurate and can be safely ignored, you're going to need much more credible evidence than that.

The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

Some people (not necessarily you) take these surveys and draw the conclusion that if we don't act, New York will be covered with water or the equator will be on fire or something. Neither of which is very likely. So when you say 'world of hurt' it'd be interesting to see what kind of hurt you're talking about.

I called it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577333631864470566.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

They're diverting funds.

Spend my gas tax on the f'ing road please. If you want to pay for mass transit or some other project that's fine. Just don't take it from the gas tax. The gas tax is FOR the roads. PERIOD. And it goes without saying that the mass transit if it uses gas should pay the gas tax too. No more of this tax exempt bs.