Slashdot Mirror

I bought into Android and instead of lording my decision over everybody I'm just going to remind everyone that the long run has been predicted by many industries. Apple and Blackberry will remain as niche players but it's going to be an Android future.

Given that predicting what path technology will take is like predicting the weather, I'm more inclined to believe that most everyone will follow their near-term optimum which, by your own claims, involves three times more iOS than Android. The moment polls start indicating that devs feel Android has the best near-term payoff is the moment I'll start to believe that it's an Android future.

To put the AMD price rise into a slightly longer term perspective: If I had stayed at AMD (rather than leaving and dealing with my son's cancer which turned out to be way more fun than working at AMD), the options I got in 2004 would still be underwater.

AMD price history

Did they just wait around for Murdoch's The Daily experiment for this? Is this just round two of wait-for-third-parties-to-develop-apps-and-then-hold-them-ransom like with eBooks? What's next?

If I were a mobile app developer I'd be asking myself right now if it's a smart idea to try to plan a viable business plan around iOS right now. Any good will you build by bringing people to iOS with your app is totally overlooked by Apple while any customers "they bring" to you runs a hefty 30% Apple tax.

I think it's highway robbery but I'm okay with it because I didn't buy into that bullshit. I bought into Android and instead of lording my decision over everybody I'm just going to remind everyone that the long run has been predicted by many industries. Apple and Blackberry will remain as niche players but it's going to be an Android future. So go ahead and hold publisher's -- who already hemorrhage cash -- feet to the fire. It's just going to hasten your fall.

Apple sits atop a crumbling marketshare (Schmidt claims 300,000 activations a day) and their response is to turn the screws on the third parties that set them apart from the competition? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me ...

Black bear*, FTW.

* Ref

I'm curious, if you have these kinds of issues with small companies that go public, why are you here?

Because Taco was a jackass even before he sold out, so... big whoop.

Yes, there was a $1B mistake with the early XBOX 360. That was written off and paid for a couple of years ago. But, despite that, its proving to be a successful profitable platform - being profitable since 2008.

Im not sure where you get your WII numbers - could you cite your source?

XBOX 360 currently enjoys about 30% market share compared to WII at 36% and PS3 at about 32% (cite). Thats not "two to one" - its 6 percentage points. If you look at the numbers, the WII is loosing market share rapidly. 2010 was a decent year for the Entertainment and Devices Business but revenues were down a bit. You can read the gory (and boring) details in our annual report. Dont forget that the XBOX business is a systems business - we make money many ways with the XBOX system. For example, in July 2010, this article explains that XBOX Live is a $1.2 Billion dollar business. Steam is close to that (cite).

Big companies can make costly mistakes and still thrive. Look at Intels recent $1B problem with SandyBridge. Nobody seems to be freaking out about that (will not too much anyway). There stock price hasnt even really taken a hit.

-foredecker.

the creators have lost my respect and with that, it is easier for me to walk away for now they will think of the share holder, not the customer

I'm curious, if you have these kinds of issues with small companies that go public, why are you here?

If Algeria is next, we can hope for Libya too. Unfortunately, Libya's Khaddaffi known for his sex orgies has a likeminded friend in the senile Italian clown Berlusconi.

North African girls?! Who supply them? Are they traded goods?!

Yahoo writes: "Silvio Berlusconi, the long-serving prime minister of Italy, is facing multiple scandals that are entertaining and deadly serious. Italian prosecutors are seeking a fast track trial for Berlusconi on a number of charges. The charges include abuse of power and having sex with an under aged prostitute. On the first charge, Berlusconi is accused of bribing a British lawyer named David Mills to provide favorable testimony in court cases. The more entertaining charge concerns an alleged sexual encounter between the 74-year-old Berlusconi and a 17-year-old night club dancer named Karima El Mahrough, possibly an Egyptian national, and paying for the privilege. Berlusconi and El Mahrough have denied having sex. Berlusconi appears to be trapped in a curious contradiction in Italian law. The age of consent in Italy is 14 and paying for sex is not illegal. But paying for sex with someone under 18 is a crime punishable by three years in jail."

Times of India wrote: "An influential Italian Catholic newspaper said on Tuesday that the prostitution probe into Premier Silvio Berlusconi's encounters with a Moroccan teenager is like a 'devastating tornado' damaging the country's image"

Sorry Italy, the damage is done, years ago by not kicking out that turd.

Let us hope that at least some EU politician have b0ll0cks and can take that little fu**er in his b**** and tell the Algerian leaders and the Libyan Khadaffi pack to take their bags and go to Saudi Arabia for retirement. William Bush Jr is probably already there waiting for them, similing and waiving.

A few months after we took Iraq, we secured and flew out almost 14 tons of Yellow Cake in 55 gallon drums, 4 to a pallet,on C-17's to Diego Garcia, where it was put on ships to other places. A year or two later 3 of our pilots came down with Lymphoma. Uncle Sam says it was unrelated...

Yellowcake isn't particularly radioactive. To get a significant exposure to radiation they would have had to essentially breath it.

Any shares you have in Nokia

Oops, too late: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NOK+Interactive#chart3:symbol=nok;range=1m;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

"MMS, B17 and DCA are all unpatentable. The FDA drug approval process is patent-based. Without a full patent and full ownership no pharmaceutical company will invest in drug development as they do not own the rights to the drug. The costs of drug testing are very high, with figures running from several hundred million to over a billion dollars. The FDA expects drug companies to have patent protection to allow them the ability to recover the high drug research and testing costs. Even orphan drugs need patent protection and the FDA often goes one step further by granting marketing exclusivity to compensate for the smaller markets those drugs serve.

There is no system in place for the development of unpatentable drugs, materials currently in the public domain. These potential therapies do not qualify as generic drugs either, as generics were patented drugs for which the research data has been submitted and the patents have expired. No data is in place for drugs that are not patentable."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100809202210AA7A6h9

While it doesn't cover unpatentable drugs, the purpose of the Orphan Drug Act is an attempt to add incentive where Big Pharma can't find any on their own to develop drugs for less well covered diseases. It is a recognition by the government that without patents, drug companies and the universities they partner with are less willing to pursue research where there is no money to be made by a temporary monopoly on the drugs resulting from the research.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE4DF1F3EF933A05757C0A966958260
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

= 9J =

The problem with the various bullet points is that any defense for Assange is also a defense for Dormscheit-Berg, and any attack on Dormscheit-Berg works just as well against Assange.

1) ... It was a matter of trust. Which Daniel Domscheit-Berg has violated and betrayed. The only way a leak operation like WikiLeaks can work right is if it's members see beyond their own issues. ...

"It was a matter of trust." Much like the same trust that *every* employer puts in their employees and that Wikileaks encourages those same employees to betray? Wikileaks is based on "if you're aware of corruption, let the world know." Dormscheit-Berg saw his organization corrupting, and he has departed and let the world know.

2) The irresponsibility of Daniel Domscheit-Berg ... is sad at best, and dangerous for people at worst. Specifically for the leakers. ... Having more than 1 organization right now isn't good timing. ...

I hope you got equally excited about all the people that Assange endangered when he refused to redact their namesin leaked documents. Many people in the arab world leaked information to the US military forces, and were then outed by Assange... should they be placed in harm's way simply because they leaked their information to the "wrong" entity?

3) If OpenLeaks had opened by itself without any connections to WikiLeaks, then maybe it would have been ok. But for it to open the way it did, I can't see it ever being as trustworthy or "open" as WikiLeaks.

Please help me understand. Do you want an "open" company for "leaks" to start by being secretive?

4) ... It is literally like walking into a crowded movie theater and screaming "Quick! Look over here! Don't pay attention to the movie you were all already enjoying! We've written a play for you all to watch instead!"

Assange's whole act is based on theatrics. It didn't used to be, but that's the only way to get attention. This is how the game is played - why criticize Dormscheit-Berg while ignoring Assange's use of the same techniques?

5) Rather than pushing forward and just shutting up for the good of the world ... Daniel Domscheit-Berg decided it was a better idea to gather as much media attention as possible, steal from and disrupt the image of WikiLeaks, while conveniently writing books that make him $, ...

You neglected to mention Assange's penchant for writing books too.

If this is really about exposing governments, WHY DO WE EVEN KNOW WHO JULIAN ASSANGE IS? Assange could have taken measures to feed his info to the papers & news networks while protecting his anonymity, but instead he's a household name. Think about that.

6) ... Assange's job was to draw the ire of the governments they were leaking about. He is the media spokesperson, and the figure head. ...

Don't you think it's a bit petty to complain that your guy's antics are getting less attention because of someone else's antics?

I've been watching the stock plummet since this morning. Now it's at -13%, steadily going down. http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NOA3.DE

For balance:

New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US.

Eventually we'll have a president with a realistic understanding of the proper mix and growth ratio of renewable power and traditional power, and we'll start to make use of natural assets again.

Sheesh....been watching the anti-Obama propaganda on Fox a little bit too much?

In your opinion, in what way does Obama not have a realistic understanding of a proper mix of traditional and renewable power? He did recently just open up significant new sections on the continental shelf for drilling. Is it that you think he's promoting renewable power more than traditional power? Isn't that what he SHOULD be doing? After all, traditional power doesn't NEED any help. It's already mature and highly profitable. Obama's not stopping anyone from using these new drilling techniques if they indeed are for real. However, renewable power is new and not profitable yet. It needs help in terms of money for research if it has any hope of BECOMING mature and profitable and self-sufficient. Therefore, all emphasis SHOULD be placed on renewable energy, since traditional energy is doing just fine on it's own.

I'm not a big fan of Obama for lots of reasons, but not having a "realistic understanding of the proper mix of renewable and traditional power" is not one of those reasons.

For balance:

New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US.

Eventually we'll have a president with a realistic understanding of the proper mix and growth ratio of renewable power and traditional power, and we'll start to make use of natural assets again.

that's why i qualified my comment with "not saying those places are more infrastructure friendly than the usa, but those places do know that infrastructure means business"

and, as your comment says, you do know that no rail infrastructure hurts business and quality of life in belo horizonte, and that someone in brazil is thinking about getting rail in belo horizonte, to improve business and quality of life. and that planner knows that to be a good thing, and you know it to be good thing

see i'm not using belo horizonte as a comparison to how it is in the usa in terms of actual infrastructure, but in terms of ATTITUDE towards infrastructure improvement. we have a bizarre poltical strain in the usa that thinks anything the government does is always communism, and therefore evil. they see large government capital spent on infrastructure projects as a waste of their tax payer dollars. i know, insane, right?

the simple truth is what you and i know: you invest in infrastructure, quality of life and business blossoms. and other cities outside the usa, like belo horizonte, know this to be true (because you don't have this mutant political strain running roughshod over your country)

then what happens is business gets sick of traffic jams in the usa, and moves to another country... like moving to belo horizonte, should you improve your infrastructure

sound infrastructure is a capitalist investment that pays dividends. it is solid capitalism. but not according to some morons in my country who will not be happy until our air is choking, our water is poisoned, and our food is unsafe, because government and regulation is an evil waste of money and destroys our freedoms while corporations can do no wrong. according to the tea party, it would be better for the usa to have the infrastructure of haiti, than do the ultimate evil thing of government investment in healthcare or high speed rail

and i'm not even smearing the tea party. we just had a republican governor in new jersey cancel a major rail tunnel to manhattan. because apparently his constituents like sitting in gridlock outside the lincoln tunnel or waiting in their trains because there is only one tiny tunnel between new jersey and manhattan. these tea party morons really believe this quasireligious idiocy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/362107;_ylt=AvYzYYjVzKg23lvFrwT1UctzfNdF

>>>Japan's system is amazing.

Yeah this is what I want to deal with every morning. Clearly this is a better option for me than having my own car that is quiet and roomy and can be used to pick-up a week's worth of food on my way home from work. (Video of passengers being squeezed like sardines into a train.) Oi-oi-oi cheerio! Truly amazing. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2379293/7425200

I don't know what dictionary you have, but here's what the Concise Oxford says:

I said I checked multiple and that many mentioned a free market. Quoting one that doesn't doesn't invalidate the overall point. References:

American Heritage: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Merriam-Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

Not that you should be learning about economic or political systems from dictionaries.

Oh please. If you want some basic definitions, they are fine.

Your local library should have an entire section on these subjects.

You enjoy going to the library. I'll use whatever references are online. Speaking of which, here's a quote from a classic version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Thus capitalism is essentially based on freedom - the freedom of the subscriber in risking his money, and the freedom of the consumer in giving or withholding his custom and the profit that it makes possible."

Competition is the key idea, not whether or not a company is free to sell their goods.

This is just bizarre. How can you have unfettered competition if a company isn't allowed to freely sell their goods?

You can have free market capitalism, but you can still have capitalism without a free market---capitalism tells us that private owners control the means of production, but doesn't tell us how they get their products to consumers.

Technically you can, in a very strict definition of capitalism, but in common usage, and also based on the theory of capitalism, and the common sense of what it means to own something, it is closely associated with being able to sell your goods in a free market. The references I found didn't associate them by accident.

source article

There was no FBI involved in this. It was some random company's attempt at PR (I'm sure they regret it now). The original article even says that the information would not be useful to police and that they planned to give it away at a conference in San Fransisco next week.

Not exactly "cooperation with an FBI investigation"

Seriously Slashdot... when are you going to hire editors who actually verify submissions before letting them onto the front page. No better than the national enquirer...

Sell? Eh the original article that spawned Anonymous' hate actually said the company was not selling it at all, that it did not contain information useful to police, and that they would be talking about it at some conference.

Looks like a standard marketing attempt to me. Ride the Anonymous wave of popularity (or anti-popularity depending)...

Because according to *this* article, it picked the Steelers... http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/355-steelers-will-win-super-bowl-xlv-predicts-madden-11/ wtf?

Actually, I think it's "merely" $30B cash on hand. Still, that's a a LOT of money.

And there's a considerable fight over that. Having $30B cash on hand is not necessarily a good investment. If you can't pour it into that vaunted Apple-style R&D, maybe it's time to hand some out to the shareholders so that the cash can seek out more productive uses.

What's the point? This: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL+Interactive#chart1:symbol=aapl;range=1y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

In one year, they've just about doubled their stock price, in the worst economy this country has seen in over 60 years. That's a pretty good reason to own it (and then subsequently not own it).

Hmmmm, yahoo has had this capability for maybe a decade. For $20 a year, I get up to 500 email addresses. http://antispam.yahoo.com/addressguardtour

Do you know how easy it is for reporters to track individual deaths in a war zone?

Slighter harder than in Egypt I'm sure, but if you weren't paying attention the last round of leaks contained more government-sponsored deaths than the leaks themselves could ever possibly cause. American lives are worth no more than any others, yet your government bullies the world and supports brutal dictatorships that slaughter their own people and you would seek to blame the messenger for delivering you the news? Stay classy.

You have either missed or sidestepped my point. I do not dispute that non-transitivities exist; I discussed them myself. My point was that in the majority of cases, a non-transitive result is not "ambiguous" at all.

I thought you were disputing the non-transitivities themselves, saying they were simply a consequence of how Condorcet methods processed the data; but you were saying they exist but are not ambiguous. However, when faced with a non-transitivity, a method has to make a choice since its output is transitive - either a winner, or a ranking of the candidates. Thus it has to project the space that includes non-transitivity onto one that doesn't. My point was that IRV projects in one way and Condorcet methods in another. Since each single-method system (Condorcet or otherwise) acts according to a consistent logic that is defined for the whole space, there's no reason to say, out of hand, that Condorcet systems are questionable but IRV is not -- unless the question is whether Condorcet itself is desirable.

And in THAT context -- ambiguities caused by removal of candidates in the middle of the process -- it might be justified to call them "ambiguities". But that is only a small subset of the non-transitivities that can occur in voting systems.

The results do not involve elimination. What Tideman is saying is that if you run 1000 3-candidate elections, you'd see cycles in about 10 of them, and if you run 1000 15-candidate elections, you'd see cycles in about 91 of them.

I will concede that in certain ways Shulze beats out IRV. But I will also say that Shulze is likely to be a much harder sell to the voting public. It allows freer choice but many people may not understand the implications of their choices, or how the votes are actually tallied.

True, I grant that Schulze's complexity is a problem. It might be better to rely on its precedence (in that it has been used in many organizations without much trouble), or phrase it in terms of repeatedly finding the group of candidates that are not beaten by any outside the group, and eliminating the candidate that has the least victory margin. The latter approach was used in the planning stage of an attempt to introduce Schulze to Washington elections in 2006 (see the discussion group, although it's dead now). Unfortunately, the state representative didn't get re-elected and so he couldn't propose it.
One might also use Ranked Pairs, which consists of sorting the pairwise victories by strength and going down the list, adding one-on-one preferences except when they contradict earlier ones. Ranked pairs has simplicity, Schulze has precedence, which is more important, I don't know.
Even Approval would avoid the oddities of IRV. If you're going for incrementalism, it's probably the easiest change to make: just count overvotes.

Without going into a lot of detail, IRV minimizes the larger concerns regarding Arrow. Whether it does so in ways that are "better" than Shulze, I cannot say at this time. I have not seen an actual comparison of the two in that context.

There are two ways to do such a comparison in a neutral manner.

The first is by criteria. A method passes a criterion if it always elects consistent with that criterion. For instance, a method passes the Condorcet criterion if it always elects the Condorcet winner when he exists. The Wikipedia page says that IRV "eliminates vote splitting, reducing concerns about tactical voting and strategic nomination". The criterion that mirrors this is called clone independence. A method passes clone independence if making duplicate candidates (that voters rank next to each other, but not necessarily in the same order) doesn't alter the outcome. Methods that split votes wou

Other highlights included Kinect and Xbox sales, which helped the Entertainment and Devices business beat $1 billion in annual operating profit for the first time ever... Microsoft's Xbox business racked up more than $7 billion in operating losses in the early years, but if it continues to crank at the current rate, the company might finally start earning back its investment in a few years.

I hate to say it, but if the Kinect is the most innovative MS can get after spending $7 billion, they're screwed.

Lastly, as anecdotal evidence, I visited my sister and her gamer husband over the holidays. They did have a kinect, but we spent the time playing guitar band instead. They didn't even mention it as a "must see".

No, it doesn't. Turn off updates in steam - they're not forced by any means. They are automatic, if you tell them to be.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100702082940AAz7LAn

Please stop lying.

Why would I say "Sorry" to anyone? I didn't take part in the DDoS in any way. Last time I checked I have no obligation to appologise to people I've never harmed.

Ugh. Let's cut through the BS. Do you think they should regret collateral damage or do you think they should embrace and pursue it? That's all this is about. If the former, we are not in disagreement and I misunderstood you earlier. If the latter, then *that's* where we disagree.

As for the meaning of Legitimate protest?It's pretty much an open debate.

http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/2011/01/27/what-makes-a-protest-legitimate/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/kingsnorth-six-environmental-activists

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/okbcwf/message/5458

Actually, I wasn't asking what makes a protest legitimate. I was asking what it means to you to say that a protest is legitimate.

Why would I say "Sorry" to anyone?
I didn't take part in the DDoS in any way. Last time I checked I have no obligation to appologise to people I've never harmed.

As for the meaning of Legitimate protest?It's pretty much an open debate.

http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/2011/01/27/what-makes-a-protest-legitimate/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/kingsnorth-six-environmental-activists

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/okbcwf/message/5458

That said, Egypt has a decent sized Christian minority (15%) that I think does OK

True enough, given a fairly liberal interpretation of OK.

And it's already been plummetting.

Meaning the calls to always use https actually make sense.

Indeed. Most (all?) those online services, whether it be yahoo, facebook or myspace have their login box accessible from their main (non https) page. Even though login itself may be encrypted, the user is not supposed to enter the https himself, but he is instead redirected to a https page once he clicks login.

... which makes it easy to hijack this first step, and unless the user doublechecks the URL just before login for https, he will fall for it.

It's scary how easy this is (I once did it for a friend who wanted to spy on his estranged wife), and you don't even need any funny javascript. Just have a proxy that substitutes https://login.service.com/ with http://login.service.com/ and you're set.

This also makes those obnoxiously scary "bad certificate" warnings so pointless: the smart man-in-the-middle will avoid the certificate issue entirely, and just redirect everything to non-encrypted http.

The only solution to this is to make the user aware of the process. Make it explicit that in order to login, you need to go to https://www.facebook.com/ or https://yahoo.com/ . That way, the user is forced to "do the right thing" if he wants to log in, and an interloper will have much more trouble intercepting. Instead of just hacking up a quick proxy perl script, he'll actually have to ask TunisCert to issue a fake certificate...

Apple is one of four companies to buy Google, having sufficient cash to do the job

Uh, what? Apple has cash reserves of about $60bn, Google is currently worth about $195bn.

In the event of a takeover, Google's market cap would obviously increase. So no, nobody is going to buy Google.

    Actually, to get 75% you need at least 4 people. :)

    According to their Q3 2010 SEC filing, they made $244.8 million from subscriptions for the quarter. That would average to $81.6 million per month. At 75% being screwed, that is $61.2 million in revenue just for those At $50/mo (noted by others in the Slashdot comments), makes for 122,400 paying users per month, or 0.04% of the US population. Hmm, that's a lot lower than I had expected, but I'm very happy to know it.

    I have known people who do still have the full service, just so they can keep their AOL address. I try to encourage them over to non-isp locked solutions (gmail, hotmail, whatever). They ususally feel locked into paying AOL, regardless of the available options.

In Australia we ban just about anything at the drop of the hat. As such, their first reaction was to ban all laser pointers which could be used for this. It's now illegal to have them, similarly illegal as firearms, mase, battons, knives, etc.

So that was their first line of dealing with it. Make it illegal to have them, then you just need to find it in their house/car/clothes, and you can arrest them for possession.

This is just explaining how they make it easy to catch and prosecute these people. I don't agree with this, as this logic gets extrapolated quite easily. Eg, Want to get rid of bikies? Just ban motorcycle enthusiast groups. Want to stop people reading some book, playing some game, or watching some movie? Just make ratings required, and refuse to classify anything you don't like.

Your teacher lied to you.

Deaf people have notoriously bad spelling. Case in point, here is a link to a "Yahoo Answers" question asking whether people thought deaf university students should be given leeway with spelling and grammar, when even foreign language students are not:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090702074259AAKDeM3

NASA research into sub-vocalization showed that even deaf people sub-vocalize - that is they twitch muscles related to the words they are reading. Those deaf people who have never heard the sounds simply sub-vocalize with their hands instead of their throat and mouths.

In other words, they have the exact same potential pitfalls that everyone else has. The only difference is they wiggle their fingers instead of wiggling their jaws.

Good spelling must be learned. It does not come naturally to anybody. The only reason people who learned to read phonetically have trouble spelling is because spelling was not emphasized. It should have been. How can you possibly expect to correctly spell a word in a language as mixed up and confused as English if you've never learned to spell? Even sight readers have this problem for any new word (which is much harder for them to learn than someone who learned phonetically - phonics shouldn't be neglected either). They simply know how to spell the words they know how to write, they don't know the rules for spelling or grammar any more than a phonetic reader.

The goal of sight reading is to pick up the phonetics naturally anyway. When that fails you get functional illiteracy - people who can read the 2,000-3,000 words the learned from all those "See Spot Run" books and have no way of learning new words. That's why the functional illiteracy rate in the US is estimated to be between 15% and 30%.

This is getting off topic, but the point is the only reason people can't spell is because their education was neglected. They cannot spell because they were not taught to spell correctly.

Blaming phonics is a cop out that is demonstrably false.

For a contrasting example, spelling bees don't exist in Japan. To say a word correctly is to spell it correctly. Good luck writing it though. It is entirely possible to learn to read Japanese without ever learning to speak it. In fact, if you can read Chinese, you can figure out Japanese (and vice versa). The only difference between the written languages is the sentence structure.

Also, I realize this could actually be anybody, but a very complete and thorough explanation (that can probably be double checked if you care) by someone claiming to be a CA police officer http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG

I think what you heard was probably rumor/urban legend

Not if its already in is pre filed trading plan. Even those are not necessarily written with clarity in mind. But they do let you report after the trade just like everybody else.

Trades by insiders are here?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL+Insider+Transactions
And yes, they are all routinely cashing in shares, as are all insiders from all companies. Its part of their compensation, and you can't buy a Yacht or a Liver transplant with shares.

That being said, Jobs does not appear on that list.

And why was there no press conference to announce he had sold $1.4 billion in Apple shares in the 3 days before his announcement.

Look, Ma. No mention of the Great Satan at all. There was no announcement because it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Here are the insider trades for the last year or so.

I don't see Jobs there.

Overall it's an awful deal, unless you have a lot of cash to burn and somehow think that the Facebook of 2013 will be worth more than its currently overpriced 2011 version.

Yeah, it would have been a terrible decision to hope the value of Google in 2007 would be worth more than the value in 2005.

I still don't get your opinion in regards with the corporations:
1. are they a good thing - because they are pretty synonymous in the current stage of capitalism, them being the enitities that create most of the wealth; *or*
2. are they a baaad thing - being in existence because the blessing of a governmen. (no, they are not created by the govt, they are created by the money everybody in the capitalistic world put in - if you have a private retirement plan, you are contributing to their existence every pay-check at least).

The above aside, you will be probably excited by another article of the same author: let's privatize the government, start leasing the moon and reap the benefits. Two out-of-the-box solutions offered by the same author (I can guarantee he's not of the nosy MBA graduates, he's only an BA in history). My only problem: he's offering these solutions fro free - which gets me thinking: "Hang on, that's not capitalistic. These ideas will surely create wealth, how dare him offering them for free? Isn't this rather Marx-istic?"

Granted, I can't say these solutions are "hot-air" given the moon has no atmosphere, but they do have a merit: with the govts being privatized, there's no reason for UN to exist anymore, thus every inch on the Moon claimed by UN will be reverted to the ownership of corporations (again: are they good? are they bad?).

I still don't get your opinion in regards with the corporations:
1. are they a good thing - because they are pretty synonymous in the current stage of capitalism, them being the enitities that create most of the wealth; *or*
2. are they a baaad thing - being in existence because the blessing of a governmen. (no, they are not created by the govt, they are created by the money everybody in the capitalistic world put in - if you have a private retirement plan, you are contributing to their existence every pay-check at least).

The above aside, you will be probably excited by another article of the same author: let's privatize the government, start leasing the moon and reap the benefits. Two out-of-the-box solutions offered by the same author (I can guarantee he's not of the nosy MBA graduates, he's only an BA in history). My only problem: he's offering these solutions fro free - which gets me thinking: "Hang on, that's not capitalistic. These ideas will surely create wealth, how dare him offering them for free? Isn't this rather Marx-istic?"

Granted, I can't say these solutions are "hot-air" given the moon has no atmosphere, but they do have a merit: with the govts being privatized, there's no reason for UN to exist anymore, thus every inch on the Moon claimed by UN will be reverted to the ownership of corporations (again: are they good? are they bad?).

The inspiration will be as much commercial as scientific and a desire to enhance national prestige and security.

Afterall, there's nothing wrong with greedy corporations. I mean, Mark Whittington - huge genius, I tell ya - offered two out-of-the-box solutions for free... how can we not go ahead and privatize the government, start leasing the moon and reap the profits!?

The inspiration will be as much commercial as scientific and a desire to enhance national prestige and security.

Afterall, there's nothing wrong with greedy corporations. I mean, Mark Whittington - huge genius, I tell ya - offered two out-of-the-box solutions for free... how can we not go ahead and privatize the government, start leasing the moon and reap the profits!?

mmmmmmmmmm moon powder.

Wtf do they expect to find gold, diamonds, platinum?

No, buddy, just RTFA. Le'me quote for you:

The presence of lunar water, as well as other potentially lucrative resources such as helium 2 and rare Earth elements, might spur a new race to the Moon that would dwarf the previous one. The inspiration will be as much commercial as scientific and a desire to enhance national prestige and security.

I took the liberty of emphasising some words in the quote above... I'm totally shaken, almost crying of shame... how could I not see it!! Not contributing with at least my next year's salary to this commercial venture is un-patriotic and on the fringe of qualifying me as a terrorist!

Quick, lets follow the suggestion of the same author (the gianterest mind in the all the worlds... not even recognized enough: only a BA in history??! You gotta be kidd'n' me, right?)... as Ah was sayin' lets privatize the government, start leasing the moon and rip them profits!!!... nothing easier to get out from this economic crisis... wha' the hell are we waiting for?

mmmmmmmmmm moon powder.

Wtf do they expect to find gold, diamonds, platinum?

No, buddy, just RTFA. Le'me quote for you:

The presence of lunar water, as well as other potentially lucrative resources such as helium 2 and rare Earth elements, might spur a new race to the Moon that would dwarf the previous one. The inspiration will be as much commercial as scientific and a desire to enhance national prestige and security.

I took the liberty of emphasising some words in the quote above... I'm totally shaken, almost crying of shame... how could I not see it!! Not contributing with at least my next year's salary to this commercial venture is un-patriotic and on the fringe of qualifying me as a terrorist!

Quick, lets follow the suggestion of the same author (the gianterest mind in the all the worlds... not even recognized enough: only a BA in history??! You gotta be kidd'n' me, right?)... as Ah was sayin' lets privatize the government, start leasing the moon and rip them profits!!!... nothing easier to get out from this economic crisis... wha' the hell are we waiting for?

This feat is even more amazing than we first thought considering
all
Chinese
people
look
alike.

Why is Apple's stock so prone to heavy fluctuation

Apple doesn't pay dividends, so its stock is owned by speculators, not investors.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders - 71% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: