yes, hence why all CEO's have strict requirements about what they can and can't talk about. anything that is public information is open for discussion, provided you strict to EXACTLY what the formal released position is. and no their formal position was NOT ~500k. it was a range. Musk has the added restriction of must obtain board approval first due to his previous illegal actions.
NO, the SEC does not have to be involved in the distribution at all. The proper way simply has to be the official company channel for release of the material. In this case there is an added restriction that If done via tweets it must be board approved first.
earnings report stated 350k-500k. by stating it would be approximately 500k he has released material information that the numbers would be on the high side of the estimate.
So which enterprises do you think make a decision on food for 8 months or a toy? I suspect what you think of an enterprise is something the rest of the world doesn't
There is anti war, then there is just plain stupid. At what point do you draw the line? MS software is used extensively throughout the militaries of the world for planning and excuting missions, why aren't they protesting that? Their software is used extensively by the politicians that authorise those wars, why aren't they protesting that? should every pen/pencil/car maker/food supplier all ban any government or military contracts? and if you aren't banning them all then it is completely fucking hypocritical just to ban one particular item you sell.
I dislike Nvidia, But if you are after a high end gaming card now for mid range prices that is going to still be good for high end in 4-5 years NO ONE is making cards for you.
Mostly theoretical lol, no it fucking wasn't. It was a well known vulnerability that hadn't been extensively exploited yet. that is not "theoretical", their was no doubt about the vulnerability or that it has been used many times.
If the patent troll was wealthy and successful in their own right they wouldn't be a patent troll in the first place.
patent trolls are INTENTIONALLY not wealthy, the people that own the patent troll companies are exceedingly wealthy or opportunistic large law firms. By doing it through a separate entity they are protecting themselves from any financial backlash should their trolling fail.
So is it that East Texas is a hive of corruption where Apple (one of the wealthiest and most successful companies on the planet) is being outbid by literally-who patent trolls?
Again as patent trolls are wealthy and have nothing to lose you can't outbid them, doing so would just be a white flag for all the vultures to circle to get their cut.
Or is it that East Texas simply has judges who favor the actual holders of patents (just as the law is written)?
Best UI? well it would be fucking hard for it to be any worse than their recent efforts. the s9 blows chunks, especially bixby and unless bixby is gone from the new one I am calling BS on it being their best.
I have something like 40,000 as well (and yes I regularly clean up). they sorted into various categories and distribution lists (most through rules) which are there so I can use them as a searchable repository anytime I need. Emails sent directly to me are answered/read by priority of the current project and people I am working with, followed by my peers and or management followed by others when I have time, if you want to get immediate attention and you aren't at the top of my priority list then I expect you to make an effort to contact me directly rather than email.
If I read every email addressed to me I would do nothing but read email every day.
There is actually PLENTY to see here. Those laws were intended for companies that made "real" loses to recoup some of it through tax credits. Not for companies that manufacture artificial loses through huge investments to claim them against future profits.
given the information described isn't actually non-public sensitive information yeah the SEC would have done nothing. If it was something like unpublished financial numbers not yet released to the public that would be a whole other situation.
That is still considered public information, if you can source the information from a service be it free or otherwise it is public. Non-public market information is reserved purely for information about the company that would have a material affect on the share price that can only be obtained internally to the company.
No it doesn't frame them as such at all. It frames them as a high risk as they have already proven that given the right temptation their ethics and moral compass are "flexible". maybe it is a once off, maybe not. But you know they have failed at least once so the responsible thing to do is ensure they are not in a position with such temptations again. It doesn't mean don't hire them or use their knowledge, but ensure it is properly supervised with no such tempations.
except that is not the position he is in at all. He is already a very rich and successful lawyer at the top of his career with enough investment that the insider trading saved him over $300k. I am no where near that level yet but I would not be tempted for even a second to risk everything I earned in life plus destroying my future and a potential jail term to avoid making what for him was a relatively small lose on the markets.
HoloLens released and was apparently very successful. HoloLens was never a consumer device that you would see in stores or homes, it was for large enterprises usually in construction, manufacturing, engineering or architecture spaces.
so called "medicenes" like homepathy treatments exist precisely because they do not fall under the regulations of medicenes. So that isn't anything to do with the regulator being soft, it is the regulator currently has no power over them as they aren't classified as medical treatments and as long as they keep their claims vague enough with innuendo etc they are not subject to medical regulations.
it informs people of options they did not know existed. So in my parents case it would save the shoppers money who would have otherwise purchased the same goods at considerably higher prices from the well known big name retailers . It doesn't change their purchase choice, merely the location and price they purchase from.
I can't stand Ad's but your statement is patently false. Many Ad's aren't specifically about getting people to buy what they don't need, they are often purely about brand awareness. For example my parents used to run a series of furniture Ads for their, it was all about ensuring people know they exist, people didn't see it and think "OH WOW, I must run out and buy a $6,000 leather lounge", it was aimed squarely at those shopping for them already.
Increased walk through traffic in their store from Advertising actually allowed them to lower prices as they can survive and compete on much lower margins then they would otherwise.
No unlike the unthoughtful pricks doing this he probably has some empathy for those that can't be vaccinated and for the poor innocent children of these neglectful parents. Really it is child abuse and should be treated as such.
I think you can drop the personalised "Consumers believe Ads are morally wrong". Ad's used to be kinda ok, but now companies like Google and other Ad purveyors have become such arseholes and so intrusive that I think you would find a majority think they need to be blocked. It seems they think it is their right to intrude on us and how dare we look to stop them. I think it was about 2 years ago when they broke the camels back with the sound and video Ad's, especially the automatic playback or mouseover ones, now all my browsers have an Ad blocker installed, hell even where I am currently contracted is looking at putting an ad blocker into their corporate desktop image.
well in reality their is a tiny chance. But just like Lotto it isn't a smart investment of resources as unless you are incredibly lucky (win the lotto multiple times in a row kind of lucky) you are going to spend many times 137 million and get nothing for it.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, hence why all CEO's have strict requirements about what they can and can't talk about. anything that is public information is open for discussion, provided you strict to EXACTLY what the formal released position is. and no their formal position was NOT ~500k. it was a range. Musk has the added restriction of must obtain board approval first due to his previous illegal actions.
NO, the SEC does not have to be involved in the distribution at all. The proper way simply has to be the official company channel for release of the material. In this case there is an added restriction that If done via tweets it must be board approved first.
right or wrong is irrelevant, he isn't allowed to tweet material information without approval.
earnings report stated 350k-500k. by stating it would be approximately 500k he has released material information that the numbers would be on the high side of the estimate.
So which enterprises do you think make a decision on food for 8 months or a toy? I suspect what you think of an enterprise is something the rest of the world doesn't
There is anti war, then there is just plain stupid. At what point do you draw the line? MS software is used extensively throughout the militaries of the world for planning and excuting missions, why aren't they protesting that? Their software is used extensively by the politicians that authorise those wars, why aren't they protesting that? should every pen/pencil/car maker/food supplier all ban any government or military contracts? and if you aren't banning them all then it is completely fucking hypocritical just to ban one particular item you sell.
I dislike Nvidia, But if you are after a high end gaming card now for mid range prices that is going to still be good for high end in 4-5 years NO ONE is making cards for you.
Mostly theoretical lol, no it fucking wasn't. It was a well known vulnerability that hadn't been extensively exploited yet. that is not "theoretical", their was no doubt about the vulnerability or that it has been used many times.
If the patent troll was wealthy and successful in their own right they wouldn't be a patent troll in the first place.
patent trolls are INTENTIONALLY not wealthy, the people that own the patent troll companies are exceedingly wealthy or opportunistic large law firms. By doing it through a separate entity they are protecting themselves from any financial backlash should their trolling fail.
So is it that East Texas is a hive of corruption where Apple (one of the wealthiest and most successful companies on the planet) is being outbid by literally-who patent trolls?
Again as patent trolls are wealthy and have nothing to lose you can't outbid them, doing so would just be a white flag for all the vultures to circle to get their cut.
Or is it that East Texas simply has judges who favor the actual holders of patents (just as the law is written)?
No.
So a professor that understands neither art nor AI makes an idiotic statement about them, surprise surprise..
Best UI? well it would be fucking hard for it to be any worse than their recent efforts. the s9 blows chunks, especially bixby and unless bixby is gone from the new one I am calling BS on it being their best.
I have something like 40,000 as well (and yes I regularly clean up). they sorted into various categories and distribution lists (most through rules) which are there so I can use them as a searchable repository anytime I need. Emails sent directly to me are answered/read by priority of the current project and people I am working with, followed by my peers and or management followed by others when I have time, if you want to get immediate attention and you aren't at the top of my priority list then I expect you to make an effort to contact me directly rather than email. If I read every email addressed to me I would do nothing but read email every day.
There is actually PLENTY to see here. Those laws were intended for companies that made "real" loses to recoup some of it through tax credits. Not for companies that manufacture artificial loses through huge investments to claim them against future profits.
given the information described isn't actually non-public sensitive information yeah the SEC would have done nothing. If it was something like unpublished financial numbers not yet released to the public that would be a whole other situation.
That is still considered public information, if you can source the information from a service be it free or otherwise it is public. Non-public market information is reserved purely for information about the company that would have a material affect on the share price that can only be obtained internally to the company.
No it doesn't frame them as such at all. It frames them as a high risk as they have already proven that given the right temptation their ethics and moral compass are "flexible". maybe it is a once off, maybe not. But you know they have failed at least once so the responsible thing to do is ensure they are not in a position with such temptations again. It doesn't mean don't hire them or use their knowledge, but ensure it is properly supervised with no such tempations.
except that is not the position he is in at all. He is already a very rich and successful lawyer at the top of his career with enough investment that the insider trading saved him over $300k. I am no where near that level yet but I would not be tempted for even a second to risk everything I earned in life plus destroying my future and a potential jail term to avoid making what for him was a relatively small lose on the markets.
HoloLens released and was apparently very successful. HoloLens was never a consumer device that you would see in stores or homes, it was for large enterprises usually in construction, manufacturing, engineering or architecture spaces.
so called "medicenes" like homepathy treatments exist precisely because they do not fall under the regulations of medicenes. So that isn't anything to do with the regulator being soft, it is the regulator currently has no power over them as they aren't classified as medical treatments and as long as they keep their claims vague enough with innuendo etc they are not subject to medical regulations.
it informs people of options they did not know existed. So in my parents case it would save the shoppers money who would have otherwise purchased the same goods at considerably higher prices from the well known big name retailers . It doesn't change their purchase choice, merely the location and price they purchase from.
I can't stand Ad's but your statement is patently false. Many Ad's aren't specifically about getting people to buy what they don't need, they are often purely about brand awareness. For example my parents used to run a series of furniture Ads for their, it was all about ensuring people know they exist, people didn't see it and think "OH WOW, I must run out and buy a $6,000 leather lounge", it was aimed squarely at those shopping for them already.
Increased walk through traffic in their store from Advertising actually allowed them to lower prices as they can survive and compete on much lower margins then they would otherwise.
No unlike the unthoughtful pricks doing this he probably has some empathy for those that can't be vaccinated and for the poor innocent children of these neglectful parents. Really it is child abuse and should be treated as such.
I think you can drop the personalised "Consumers believe Ads are morally wrong". Ad's used to be kinda ok, but now companies like Google and other Ad purveyors have become such arseholes and so intrusive that I think you would find a majority think they need to be blocked. It seems they think it is their right to intrude on us and how dare we look to stop them. I think it was about 2 years ago when they broke the camels back with the sound and video Ad's, especially the automatic playback or mouseover ones, now all my browsers have an Ad blocker installed, hell even where I am currently contracted is looking at putting an ad blocker into their corporate desktop image.
A metallic sponge would better describe its composition or metallic foam.
well in reality their is a tiny chance. But just like Lotto it isn't a smart investment of resources as unless you are incredibly lucky (win the lotto multiple times in a row kind of lucky) you are going to spend many times 137 million and get nothing for it.