The guy committed fraud. Yes, I agree the details are pretty pathetic, but it was still fraud, and really nothing to do with the financial system but what passes for justice in the US, one of the most Kafka-esque systems in the Western world.
You need to ask yourself what you mean by "socially productive" and how you could apply any sensible measure to quantify it. There is a reason we use the market mechanism to put a value on things: because it allows consumers and businesses to make a decision on what they want to allocate their resources to. Just because you think an intellectual property firm is somehow "socially unproductive", does not necessarily mean that it is.
My suspicion is that after a while, most sites will set upon a standard protocol for requesting permission that can be intercepted by a plug-in and silently answered by the browser without the user's interference. After a while, this plug-in will be bundled automatically and the situation will be exactly the same as it is now.
The detailed drafting of the regulations, which is how European directives are implemented, will not be ready before May. It's hardly unreasonable to state you're not going to be strictly enforcing regulations which haven't yet been promulgated.
What the hell ass are you talking about? Please cite a graph showing the US unemployment rate since, say, 1850 or so. The go and read some basic economics.
Actually, HF trading is not so much about liquidity - stock markets are liquid anyway. It is more to do with efficiency, and they effectively do it by removing arbitrage.
Stock markets do not raise capital. IPOs raise capital; secondary stock markets simply re-allocate capital between investors. I really don't understand why so many people miss this point.
More like, it's a complex subject distorted by the fact that many of the participants can make large amounts of money. And Yves is something of a rabble-rouser - her analyses are just as bad as the ones she goes to town on.
To actually answer your question, my understanding is that it is more efficient to route IPs when the addresses are physically contiguous, which is obviously not the case in the situation where addresses are tradeable.
It's more a change in market demographics - nowadays, the R-rated audience buys (or downloads) DVDs; they tend not to go to the cinema. Families on the other hand, love cinemas, as the kids get popcorn and the parents get to sit down and relax for an hour or two.
Globally, that doesn't seem unreasonable. US demand for oil is far higher than it needs to be and it could be managed down quite easily. Add that to world trade reform of agriculture and this could be perfectly manageable. Implement cap and trade while we're at it and I might just restore my faith in humanity.
Are you kidding? Something which means they can carry on their business indefinitely but without the hassle of having to deal with Chavez and Putin? If I ran an oil company I would be breaking out the Cuban cigars and ordering a bunch of sexually liberated virgins right now.
Neighbourhood trainee actuary here...let's have a look. We assume the age of a DN3D player follows a normal distribution with mean age 20 and variance of 25, giving 95% aged between about 10 and 30, which seems about right. We assume that all these people enjoyed DN3D for a year after Plutonium Pak was released, and so have to have survived from November 1996 to May 2011, which we will round down to 14 years (because non-integer years suck). We use the English Life Tables No 16, which give the mortality of the 2000-2002 cohort for the entire population. Without any further information to adjust mortality data on, this seems reasonable.
We take a Monte Carlo approach, simply simulating a large number of lives. I can't find an estimate for the number of players of DN3D, but I have used 100,000 and if further data comes to light my answer can simply be scaled up or down. We use the English Life Tables to generate the probability a player aged x in 1997 died in the next 14 years, which ranges from 0.1% for the 10 year olds (ten is roughly the safest age of your life) to about 3.7% for the more aged gamers. We then simply sum these over the weights for each age, giving an estimate of 835.37 deaths per 100,000 DN3D players.
Of course this is very much a back of the envelope calculation, but it seems pretty reasonable. As a crude check, 14q20=0.008762809, so multiply that by 100000 and you have a very similar number.
In principle, it is very simple. In practice, valuing stock is the reason that investment bankers make millions. All you do is multiply the expected dividend in any year by the probability the company still exists and apply interest back through to the present day. Add it up over all years and that is the price the stock should be.
In your position, though, a simpler question is does my company have a sound business model and do I trust the people in charge to execute it? If they're both yes, you may be onto something.
It's always seemed to me the simpler approach is to ban ammunition. Have all the guns you want, just make them slightly less useful than baseball bats. Who knows, it might even be constitutional...
It depends how smart your network provider is. Certainly in the UK, when I was an engineering student people were mucking around with this and all networks would pass on binaries without regards to the source.
Add in that you have to discount such a company's valuation heavily for risk, and you're looking at an expected growth in revenues that is just insane. Anyone investing in FB at these kinds of valuations is just clueless or knows something we don't. Even being Goldman, I'd say the former.
It's genuinely insane, is the only answer. Assuming they can earn a return of 8% and manage to grow their business at the same rate, there's simply no way that valuation relates to reality. An increasing cashflow with those rates starting with a payment of $350m has a present value of about $30b over 100 years and that is for guaranteed cashflows - a totally unrealistic assumption.
The only way it makes sense is if they think the revenue is going to explode. This looks like Web Bubble 2.0 to me.
I've started using Facebook for things like that. Search all status updates for, say, "htc wildfire" and you get a pretty interesting stream of consciousness. It might not be better than the cnet review, but it does give a very good flavour of user satisfaction.
A useful tip is that if someone starts talking to me about fractional reserve banking and how evil it is, I make polite noises and move away quietly. Most intelligent people with a basic grasp of economics will do likewise.
Always remember, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. I remember telling people to ignore the dot-com bubble as a teenager and being laughed at for years. I told people the housing market was a mess and that buying a house was stupid, and we all know what happened there...
Actually, Goldman is publicly traded, though the majority of stock is held by employees, ex-employees, or other investors who pre-date the flotation in 1999. Something like 12% of the equity is regularly traded. The answer will be something to do with the additional $1.5b that Goldman is raising from other partners. They will be tapping that somehow or other.
To be honest, anyone with the drive and dedication to become president could probably make that quite easily in whatever field he chose. And compare Clinton's speaking fees with George W's; not exactly the same league.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy committed fraud. Yes, I agree the details are pretty pathetic, but it was still fraud, and really nothing to do with the financial system but what passes for justice in the US, one of the most Kafka-esque systems in the Western world.
You need to ask yourself what you mean by "socially productive" and how you could apply any sensible measure to quantify it. There is a reason we use the market mechanism to put a value on things: because it allows consumers and businesses to make a decision on what they want to allocate their resources to. Just because you think an intellectual property firm is somehow "socially unproductive", does not necessarily mean that it is.
The key point is "qualify for the space". Personally, my opinion is that ponying up $11m pretty much qualifies you, but apparently ARIN disagree.
My suspicion is that after a while, most sites will set upon a standard protocol for requesting permission that can be intercepted by a plug-in and silently answered by the browser without the user's interference. After a while, this plug-in will be bundled automatically and the situation will be exactly the same as it is now.
The detailed drafting of the regulations, which is how European directives are implemented, will not be ready before May. It's hardly unreasonable to state you're not going to be strictly enforcing regulations which haven't yet been promulgated.
What the hell ass are you talking about? Please cite a graph showing the US unemployment rate since, say, 1850 or so. The go and read some basic economics.
Stock markets do not raise capital. IPOs raise capital; secondary stock markets simply re-allocate capital between investors. I really don't understand why so many people miss this point.
More like, it's a complex subject distorted by the fact that many of the participants can make large amounts of money. And Yves is something of a rabble-rouser - her analyses are just as bad as the ones she goes to town on.
Same - np here, 1440*900.
To actually answer your question, my understanding is that it is more efficient to route IPs when the addresses are physically contiguous, which is obviously not the case in the situation where addresses are tradeable.
It's more a change in market demographics - nowadays, the R-rated audience buys (or downloads) DVDs; they tend not to go to the cinema. Families on the other hand, love cinemas, as the kids get popcorn and the parents get to sit down and relax for an hour or two.
Globally, that doesn't seem unreasonable. US demand for oil is far higher than it needs to be and it could be managed down quite easily. Add that to world trade reform of agriculture and this could be perfectly manageable. Implement cap and trade while we're at it and I might just restore my faith in humanity.
Are you kidding? Something which means they can carry on their business indefinitely but without the hassle of having to deal with Chavez and Putin? If I ran an oil company I would be breaking out the Cuban cigars and ordering a bunch of sexually liberated virgins right now.
We take a Monte Carlo approach, simply simulating a large number of lives. I can't find an estimate for the number of players of DN3D, but I have used 100,000 and if further data comes to light my answer can simply be scaled up or down. We use the English Life Tables to generate the probability a player aged x in 1997 died in the next 14 years, which ranges from 0.1% for the 10 year olds (ten is roughly the safest age of your life) to about 3.7% for the more aged gamers. We then simply sum these over the weights for each age, giving an estimate of 835.37 deaths per 100,000 DN3D players.
Of course this is very much a back of the envelope calculation, but it seems pretty reasonable. As a crude check, 14q20=0.008762809, so multiply that by 100000 and you have a very similar number.
In your position, though, a simpler question is does my company have a sound business model and do I trust the people in charge to execute it? If they're both yes, you may be onto something.
It's always seemed to me the simpler approach is to ban ammunition. Have all the guns you want, just make them slightly less useful than baseball bats. Who knows, it might even be constitutional...
It depends how smart your network provider is. Certainly in the UK, when I was an engineering student people were mucking around with this and all networks would pass on binaries without regards to the source.
Add in that you have to discount such a company's valuation heavily for risk, and you're looking at an expected growth in revenues that is just insane. Anyone investing in FB at these kinds of valuations is just clueless or knows something we don't. Even being Goldman, I'd say the former.
The only way it makes sense is if they think the revenue is going to explode. This looks like Web Bubble 2.0 to me.
I've started using Facebook for things like that. Search all status updates for, say, "htc wildfire" and you get a pretty interesting stream of consciousness. It might not be better than the cnet review, but it does give a very good flavour of user satisfaction.
Yes, it's called a 3% interest savings account. Don't tell anyone, but if you invest $10 today, in fifty years time you'll have over $40. What a scam.
A useful tip is that if someone starts talking to me about fractional reserve banking and how evil it is, I make polite noises and move away quietly. Most intelligent people with a basic grasp of economics will do likewise.
Always remember, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. I remember telling people to ignore the dot-com bubble as a teenager and being laughed at for years. I told people the housing market was a mess and that buying a house was stupid, and we all know what happened there...
Actually, Goldman is publicly traded, though the majority of stock is held by employees, ex-employees, or other investors who pre-date the flotation in 1999. Something like 12% of the equity is regularly traded. The answer will be something to do with the additional $1.5b that Goldman is raising from other partners. They will be tapping that somehow or other.
To be honest, anyone with the drive and dedication to become president could probably make that quite easily in whatever field he chose. And compare Clinton's speaking fees with George W's; not exactly the same league.