That's due to the underwriters buying the stock in massive volume providing support at $38.
Doesn't look like massive volume to me. Agreed that someone was supporting the price at $38, but after the opening bell it seems there was fairly little trading. That made it volatile, but it seems the owners got what they wanted and the speculators are left holding stock that's going to drop eventually.
This is interesting because it may finally set limits as to how aggressively a company may collect and utilise data on users.
Or not. IANAL, but I can't imagine how this case has a chance. Browser tracking is everywhere, you should assume you are being tracked; the only reason for this suit is that FB has lots of cash.
over 10 million ads on compromised computers but only a small percentage of users who were shown ads actually clicked them, with close to 400,000 ads being clicked
That's a very high click-through rate. What was it that enticed so many morons to click on an advertisement? Nobody I know ever clicks on that kind of crap.
Careful reading reveals that your doubt is well placed, but you misread their claim:
technology that could improve the fuel economy of gas-powered cars by 50 percent...Diesel engines are 40 to 45 percent efficient in using the energy in fuel to propel a vehicle, compared to roughly 30 percent efficiency for gasoline engines.
So all they really claim is that a diesel engine that runs on gasoline has roughly the same efficiency as a fuel-oil powered diesel.
Bad CEO replaced by bad CEO replaced by bad CEO
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Carly Fiorina gutted the company and put it into a tailspin. Hurd took over and promised to fix things by gutting the company. Now Whitman has taken over and promised to fix things by gutting the company. I hate to see HP go, at one time it was a great company, but they lost their way under Fiorina and never recovered.
You paid over $2.5 Billion on profits of $250? Time for a new accountant. (By the way, don' t bother linking to the NYT article that incorrectly implied that GE was getting a multi-billion dollar "tax benefit", they already admitted the article was grossly misleading).
the concept works by allowing processing components — such as hardware for adding and multiplying numbers — to make a few mistakes, which means they are not working as hard
But my math teacher didn't understand the important difference between efficient and lazy.
You mean things like start a tech company and make a of couple million dollars, scuffle with the IRS, run for local political office, things like that?
Nice try, but gay marriage is a pretty low priority item for them; they were the last major religious group to join the fight against Prop 8, and then only after the Catholics begged them to join. In fact, Baptists (claimed religion of the other presumptive candidate) probably outspend Mormons.
Do you think a bill to increase liquid fuels tax by $2 per gallon would get through Congress? No chance.
That's what the survey was trying to find. The price point they can claim energy will be in order to have a chance at getting getting a bill passed. Once they find that point they can make up their number based on "studies" to support the claim that magic pixie dust and unicorns will only add 13% to your electric bill (after subsidies of course).
I would include them in the mix, but I certainly wouldn't exclude other media outlets. Sometimes for fun I read through a half dozen or so Google links to the same news article, their bias jumps out at you. Fox, NY Times, LA Times, Al Jazeera, Asian Times, BBC, CNN... it doesn't matter which you pick, the story will be subtly or not so subtly biased.
Wheaton compares blocking BitTorrent to closing freeways because bank robbers could get away.
Taking that argument a bit farther, how about saying anyone should be able to own fully automatic machine guns and grenade launchers someone once used a similar weapon to defend himself against an assault.
governments should tax at a rate equal to the externality costs
Two problems with that: 1) Nobody can accurately determine the externality cost, and 2) Nobody trusts the government to spend that money appropriately.
Basically this proposal is a suggestion to arbitrarily raise the cost of energy, and let whatever political party is in power choose which energy source is subsidized the most. We've already seen how well that works; no thanks.
She had to be charged to avoid an outcry. Kind of like the Zimmerman/Martin case on this side of the pond, everyone knows they'll be acquitted but we have to go through the formalities to assuage the blogosphere
We'll never know what might have happened if the US government had ordered enough work to pay for a press like this and let private industry build it. Most likely the outcome would have been the same, but maybe better or maybe worse. It was in the government's interest to have the manufacturing capacity available for the defense industry to use either way.
They knew it was impossible to do on that spectrum, but their plan was to buy additional satellite bands and make up in volume what they lost in...I don't know, reality?
Regrowing a new retina would be the ultimate, but given that the retina is a huge bundle of nerves I doubt we'll see that anytime soon. This seems to be stimulating existing receptors to give some vision (I assume very bad, but better than nothing).
the idea itself came from Julia Olson, an attorney based in Eugene, Oregon. Olson founded an organization called Our Children's Trust after watching the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth
It's really about attention whoring for someone's "nonprofit" organization.
Either this stuff is important enough to legally restrict or it isn't!
Which is why he wasn't arrested. He had a note which provided a reasonable explanation for the radiation. Should a terrorist carry a similar note explaining the radiation emanating from his bomb? Sounds like a plan to me. Also, don't go ballistic on the cop when you're stopped, questioned, or asked to stop obstructing traffic; be polite, keep your hands in plain sight, treat him like you expect to be treated and you'll be treated like that in return.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who benefit in that scenario are the privileged investors who get to buy at $38 and sell a few hours later at $100.
Well, yea. That's the point.
That's due to the underwriters buying the stock in massive volume providing support at $38.
Doesn't look like massive volume to me. Agreed that someone was supporting the price at $38, but after the opening bell it seems there was fairly little trading. That made it volatile, but it seems the owners got what they wanted and the speculators are left holding stock that's going to drop eventually.
This is interesting because it may finally set limits as to how aggressively a company may collect and utilise data on users.
Or not. IANAL, but I can't imagine how this case has a chance. Browser tracking is everywhere, you should assume you are being tracked; the only reason for this suit is that FB has lots of cash.
over 10 million ads on compromised computers but only a small percentage of users who were shown ads actually clicked them, with close to 400,000 ads being clicked
That's a very high click-through rate. What was it that enticed so many morons to click on an advertisement? Nobody I know ever clicks on that kind of crap.
I have my doubts about the 50% improvement.
Careful reading reveals that your doubt is well placed, but you misread their claim:
technology that could improve the fuel economy of gas-powered cars by 50 percent...Diesel engines are 40 to 45 percent efficient in using the energy in fuel to propel a vehicle, compared to roughly 30 percent efficiency for gasoline engines.
So all they really claim is that a diesel engine that runs on gasoline has roughly the same efficiency as a fuel-oil powered diesel.
Carly Fiorina gutted the company and put it into a tailspin. Hurd took over and promised to fix things by gutting the company. Now Whitman has taken over and promised to fix things by gutting the company. I hate to see HP go, at one time it was a great company, but they lost their way under Fiorina and never recovered.
You paid over $2.5 Billion on profits of $250? Time for a new accountant. (By the way, don' t bother linking to the NYT article that incorrectly implied that GE was getting a multi-billion dollar "tax benefit", they already admitted the article was grossly misleading).
the concept works by allowing processing components — such as hardware for adding and multiplying numbers — to make a few mistakes, which means they are not working as hard
But my math teacher didn't understand the important difference between efficient and lazy.
Actually what he missed was the "m" key.
You mean things like start a tech company and make a of couple million dollars, scuffle with the IRS, run for local political office, things like that?
Nice try, but gay marriage is a pretty low priority item for them; they were the last major religious group to join the fight against Prop 8, and then only after the Catholics begged them to join. In fact, Baptists (claimed religion of the other presumptive candidate) probably outspend Mormons.
Do you think a bill to increase liquid fuels tax by $2 per gallon would get through Congress? No chance.
That's what the survey was trying to find. The price point they can claim energy will be in order to have a chance at getting getting a bill passed. Once they find that point they can make up their number based on "studies" to support the claim that magic pixie dust and unicorns will only add 13% to your electric bill (after subsidies of course).
(Ann Coulter's publisher comes to mind here)
I would include them in the mix, but I certainly wouldn't exclude other media outlets. Sometimes for fun I read through a half dozen or so Google links to the same news article, their bias jumps out at you. Fox, NY Times, LA Times, Al Jazeera, Asian Times, BBC, CNN ... it doesn't matter which you pick, the story will be subtly or not so subtly biased.
Wheaton compares blocking BitTorrent to closing freeways because bank robbers could get away.
Taking that argument a bit farther, how about saying anyone should be able to own fully automatic machine guns and grenade launchers someone once used a similar weapon to defend himself against an assault.
a lot of things that are technically illegal, people don't believe OUGHT to be illegal
It would be more accurate to say "a lot of things that are technically illegal, SOME people don't believe OUGHT to be illegal".
governments should tax at a rate equal to the externality costs
Two problems with that: 1) Nobody can accurately determine the externality cost, and 2) Nobody trusts the government to spend that money appropriately.
Basically this proposal is a suggestion to arbitrarily raise the cost of energy, and let whatever political party is in power choose which energy source is subsidized the most. We've already seen how well that works; no thanks.
Yea, and that also explains our military presence in Afghanistan, Korea, East Africa, and Latin America. Oh wait.
She had to be charged to avoid an outcry. Kind of like the Zimmerman/Martin case on this side of the pond, everyone knows they'll be acquitted but we have to go through the formalities to assuage the blogosphere
Despite all the howling we've been hearing, it sounds like the democratic system worked as designed. Public debate, bad ideas squashed, eh?
We'll never know what might have happened if the US government had ordered enough work to pay for a press like this and let private industry build it. Most likely the outcome would have been the same, but maybe better or maybe worse. It was in the government's interest to have the manufacturing capacity available for the defense industry to use either way.
They knew it was impossible to do on that spectrum, but their plan was to buy additional satellite bands and make up in volume what they lost in...I don't know, reality?
Regrowing a new retina would be the ultimate, but given that the retina is a huge bundle of nerves I doubt we'll see that anytime soon. This seems to be stimulating existing receptors to give some vision (I assume very bad, but better than nothing).
the idea itself came from Julia Olson, an attorney based in Eugene, Oregon. Olson founded an organization called Our Children's Trust after watching the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth
It's really about attention whoring for someone's "nonprofit" organization.
Either this stuff is important enough to legally restrict or it isn't!
Which is why he wasn't arrested. He had a note which provided a reasonable explanation for the radiation. Should a terrorist carry a similar note explaining the radiation emanating from his bomb? Sounds like a plan to me. Also, don't go ballistic on the cop when you're stopped, questioned, or asked to stop obstructing traffic; be polite, keep your hands in plain sight, treat him like you expect to be treated and you'll be treated like that in return.
or, they could just make the content available for a reasonable price in a timely manner.
You missed the third option, which is to stop producing the content altogether.