If BofA periodically did not show the image and then warned the user they had made a mistake by entering their password, users would soon be trained to look for the image. Setting up a security system once and then not reinforcing it periodically so that users take it seriously is the probelm.
So what are they going to do, put a "try again" button on the You Made A Mistake Page? All that will do is annoy the hell out of users, and the phisher who most likely has explored the entire site will have an even easier job. Just phish the password and make the "try again" button redirect to the real bankofamerica.com site. In either case, BoA would be stuck with thousands of angry customers wondering why they were trying to trick them by not showing the sitekey.
This statement is so confused. The Constitution grants individuals all rights not specifically enumerated (Ninth Amendment).
Talk about confusion. If the Constitution grants rights to people, who or what granted that right to the Constitution to begin with? People have natural rights, not governments or the pieces of paper that define them. What the constitution actually says is that the rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government (by the people who had those rights to begin with) are either granted to a state or remain with the People.
Is there a single Sci-fi movie, book, or TV series they DIDN'T lampoon in the first four seasons? The Fry-Leela love story ran its complete arc. Every character did everything people do in their 20s. Even the hottie trust fund chick is spoken for. Did I miss something?
Is there anything Futurama can't lampoon? As long as the characters keep their clichés funny and not annoying, they can time travel or visit alternate universes or just old new york to lampoon whatever they want. It's a funny and scathing social commentary like any of the great satirists have done, but with animated characters to do it because exposition doesn't work quite so well on TV as it does in books.
One of the challenges with SMP scalability is cache coherency; synchronizing the caches on the processors is a costly operation (this is necessary to ensure that each processor has the same view of certain memory at the same time), normally (always?) done with a cache invalidation.
Opterons with Hypertransport use the MOESI cache coherency protocol to exchange data between core caches without invalidation back to main memory. I have not looked into the actual semantics of the instructions (and the LOCK prefix) to see exactly how they impact cache coherency though.
If I drive a car, or heck use a toaster. Isn't it legal for me to give the product to a mechanic or someone versed in the art to check whether it's safe or not?
Probably only if you own it. If you don't own it, there's a chance that it could be damaged and you would be liable for the damage. in the case of Windows, you don't own it thanks to copyright law, so if you "damage" the DRM during testing it you could be liable for that damage. How one can damage something doomed to failure to begin with I have no idea. Apparently simply declaring (to the world at large) exactly how it is doomed to failure with enough specificity is illegal according to the DMCA.
What if the relay routes SSL as well, with a certificate generated on the server? You'll get a warning that the cert isn't properly signed but most people don't understand these warnings and click OK anyway.
Your ISP or any router in between could do the same thing anywhere, anytime you're on the Internet. If you don't check the SSL certificate, it's your own fault.
Just connect to https://gmail.google.com As far as I can tell it keeps everything in the SSL session as long as you use it. Of course everything you sent and received went through the public Internet at one point anyway...
Even if it turns your stomach to think about it, what he was *supposed* to do, under the ethical system that he presumably embraced, was to have sex with his lawful wife or not at all...
I suppose that's why they shot JFK after all... Honestly, do you really think that one of the president's duties to his country is to only screw the "right" people? As opposed to say, not starting illegal wars or trying to destroy habeas corpus?
It's freaky watching how far Clinton's legacy has rolled things back. Because of his pathological sexual practices, people like you have grown up in an environment where Sexual Harassment and Power Relationships are totally blurred and viewed as irrelevant. It's almost like the Women's movement never happened.
I suppose it's wrong to assume that a woman might want to have sex with the president, and that she might have a right to? I abhor sexual abuse and harassment, but plenty of people get off on having some sort of asymmetric social relationship, either by class or wealth or power. So long as people realize it's just a mental sex aid and no abuse occurs, who's to judge them? The women's movement was about having equality, not about preventing certain types of people from having consensual sex.
I think the only way to save the United States from eventual collapse at the hands of dictators is for the people to rise up against the currently elected officials and simply vote them out of office. For example if you usually vote Democrat, vote Green instead. If you usually vote Republican, vote Libertarian instead. If you can't identify with any existing independent party, create your own that's based on freedom and liberty and try to attract a candidate to run.
The way I see it, 50% of the population voted, with the votes being almost equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Statistically, this means 50% of the country is on the right, and %50 on the left, and half of those think the entire process is either broken or impossible to influence. The latter is patently false. If the people who didn't vote in the previous election came out and voted for third party candidates, there is a very good chance that a majority of electoral seats would go to third party candidates simply because people suddenly deciding to vote will probably go for a third party candidate as the only hope of changing things, while a few of the people who voted in the previous election will switch to third party candidates.
For such a scenario to work, both the left and the right would have to produce viable third party candidates. In reality, this is just a matter of perception and not actual skill as previous Two Party elections have proven. Internet campaigns and grass roots efforts would have to bring the candidates to the attention of the general public.
As far as I can tell the reason third party candidates have failed in the past has mostly been because voters on the candidate's side of the political section have been afraid to "throw their vote away" and let the opposing Two Party candidate win. If two strong third party candidates are running on both the left and the right, voters will be much more willing to vote for who they really want, instead of for the lesser evil. The biggest problem with this whole idea is simply convincing the general public that it will work, and of course finding viable third party candidates. To be honest, I have no good ideas for who those candidates should be, but that's not really important. What's important is that qualified candidates believe that such a strategy could work, and decide to run as a third party candidate. That's all I'm asking for, some choice. We have two years, that should be enough time for any number of candidates to compete and let the public decide who their favorites are.
I may be overly optimistic, but I don't see any other way to fix the American political system.
Clinton got impeached for committing perjury in a sexual harassment case. He is a habitual sexual harasser.
I suppose by that you mean he committed sexual harassment because he was in a position of authority over the women he had sex with. Well, guess what? He was the fucking governor and then the president! In the first case, what's he supposed to do, just screw other governors? It'd be sexual abuse for a senator to sleep with him... As president, he has to sleep with Margaret Thatcher? I think what you really mean is that Clinton was a guy who had sex with more women than most neocons do in their entire lives, who subsequently got very jealous.
Because I don't want to be storing and pushing around 64 bits of address pointer when half that's enough, it's a waste of memory, bandwidth, power... I don't attempt MMIO on multi-gig files or mapping more than 4gig virtual memory to a single process. If I need values extending 32 bits, I use on of the >32bit registers that have existed on "32bit" x86 processors for years.
One of the biggest advantages of the new 64 bit chips from Intel and AMD is that they have twice as many general purpose and SIMD registers now. This greatly increases the efficiency of just about any software compiled to use all of them, but you need a 64-bit operating system that knows how to save all the extra registers on context switches.
Additionally, 4GB DIMMS are here, and most people recommend running with at least 2GB if possible. In just a couple years it's likely that 4 or 8 GB will be the new standard, essentially ending the era of pure 32 bit processors.
What he did crack is one software based player. There's now a difference. Key holders will now revoke the keys for that particular player, so it won't play newer movies anymore. There's no crack yet that would defeat the entire protection scheme.
Sure there is. Every software player will be equally vulnerable to this same attack, so realistically any software player will be hackable to extract keys for any HD content it can play. The real reason for this is that AES requires the key schedule to be available pretty much continuously to decrypt the content before decoding and playing it. My guess is that these software players just build the 80 word key schedule in memory and leave it there, making it very vulnerable to attack. It doesn't help that the first four words of the schedule are the original 128-bit decryption key, either. The only way around the simple memory scanning attack is to xor some constant with each word of the key schedule, and xor it back out at some point in the decryption algorithm. The big problem is that anyone attacking it beyond a simple memory scanning attack will easily be able to find the decryption routines and figure out how the key schedule is being mangled and recover the original key. The easiest way is just to profile the decoder. A significant percentage of the total processing (maybe 5 to 10 percent) will be due to decryption, with the majority of the time spent decoding the audio/video stream.
The only real solution for DRM is to force the video card to decrypt and decode the movie onboard, which seems to be the direction Microsoft and the MPAA want manufacturers to go. That basically means including an entire HD player inside every video card just to watch HD content. It won't be viable for copy protection for a few years when everyone has the chance to buy new video cards. It will still be vulnerable to HDCP attacks, which while they require actual hardware to circumvent won't prevent any pirates from ripping movies, and few audio/video enthusiasts who know where to get their hardware. If I ever bother buying HD media, I won't do it until I can rip the content to my RAID, which will need a little upgrade to store many 25GB movies anyway.
The rule is in place simply because it makes the game fair, fun, and profitable. We could change it if we desired, if we all decided that we wanted our stock markets to be most profitable to spammers.
Who says day trading isn't just a form of pump-and-dump? If you tell people to invest in a stock to make the price go up, and then buy low and sell high, isn't that pretty much what the market is about? The difference between these stock spams and corporate press releases is just that the spam sways the stupid investors, and the press releases sway the semi-stupid investors. Smart investors don't listen to press releases or spams, they diversify. Which law prevents companies or individuals from taking advantage of the less-than-smart investors?
Some of the e-mail claims are things impossible to actually know unless the creator is violating the insider trading rules or those conflict of interest rules you mentioned. In many cases, the only possible way they can not be guilty of insider trading is if they are making the claims up, which is good old fashioned fraud. So they can be charged, on the well established legal principle that it's still OK to charge someone with a crime even if their only way of proving they didn't do that crime is to admit to another one (Or in legal latin: Sucksem tuem beum youous).
How is a stock spam predicting great immediate growth different from a press release predicting great immediate growth? In both cases the spammer and the company have a vested interest in seeing the stock rise in the short term for whatever reason. Generally the SEC isn't too worried about companies issuing press releases saying that their stock is going to go up, even if the executives are selling stock like mad with pre-scheduled sells. I don't know of any law requiring companies or individuals to tell the complete truth about future plans for the company. Almost every company looking to get bought out tries to drive their stock price as high as possible before the buyout, even if the merger will result in a drastic drop in price. What's the difference?
Stock Spammers often make false claims - sometimes fraudulent, sometimes libelous (for ex. claims a company's last quarterly report intentionally under-reports the companies projected profits so as to create a big opportunity are false claims that a CEO, CFO, and accounting firm have all lied to the SEC, that's certainly libelous to those individuals.). Some claims of DOD or intelligence agency type government contracts, (or occasionally even DOE related ones), if actually true, would also involve revealing seriously classified information. Naturally, the government has an interest in people effectively claiming to know classified info. Some claims regarding intra-corporate lawsuits, particularly over IP, may violate standing court orders, gag orders, and the like, or even constitute extortion by threat of legal action.
I doubt most stock spam actually commits fraud. At worst it's just speculation. The implication with any stock is that past performance does not indicate future results. Hearsay predictions of future events at a given company are widespread in magazines, newspapers, and blogs. Lots of people who think a stock is going to jump in price say so, and also invest in it because they believe what they say. How is it any different for stock spammers who know the price will jump to advertise the fact that they know it? They are usually unaffiliated with the company in question, so there's no insider trading. Even though they know the real reason the stock price will jump (people are suckers), they don't have to explicitly state it that way. All they need to claim is that the market for a given stock will be hot on Monday because of increased activity on Friday. Suckers will provide all the rest. In regards to libel, there was plenty of information in the news about Worldcom and Enron before they were actually proven to have committed the acts they were accused of, and numerous companies have been accused of things that are never proven, so how do you prove libel in a spam that does essentially the same thing?
The whole point of the stock market is that nothing comes with any guarantees, every investor carries the full responsibility and risk for his or her actions. Is it reasonable to expect that the law should protect stupid people from making poor choices? The only reason one investor would tell another to invest in some stock is that the first investor expects to make a profit, quite possibly at the expense of other investors. That is just such a simple, basic assumption about the stock market that anyone who can't figure it out is probably quite stupid. Does that mean they should be prevented from investing money, or that the initial investor loo
Thereby they reinforce this strange mafia way of making money and worst of all they make sure that loads of spam will keep on putting even more pressure on the internet.
Here's the thing I don't understand. If a group of people get together and buy the same stock, and tell their friends to buy the stock, so long as none of them are prohibited from doing so due to conflict of interest, where is the illegality? If a group of people get together and buy stock and tell everyone on the Internet to buy it, where is the illegality? If a company IPOs, issues their executive officers stock, and tells investors everywhere to buy their stock, where is the illegality?
Snow Crash would make for an awful movie. There's far too much expositionary material regarding namshubs and so forth that would be interminable on the screen and couldn't be cut without rendering much of the story incomprehensible.
Just use the Library to fill in the gaps, which is pretty much what the book does. What is there to know besides the idea that there was a deeply ingrained base language at some point that got turned off, and that a virus can re-enable it? Movies necessarily have less depth, because you can't just flip back a few pages for things to make sense.
...depends on the order in which your pursue them. It's lucky that law isn't based on anything like logic where the order of facts makes no difference to whether or not they are true.
I'm not sure what you mean. If the lawyers for GEMA say "Websites allowing users to upload copyrighted media can be sued for infringement, therefore we are suing sharing websites X, Y, and Z for letting users upload copyrighted material" before they say "Rapidshare is a website allowing users to upload copyrighted media, and was successfully sued", they have no precedent. It's always easier and cheaper to try a single case for precedent rather than start dozens of lawsuits all at once.
In logic the same holds true. Without lemmas, theorems can't be proven true. There are always a sequence of steps in a proof, all of which are necessary for the final theorem to be proved.
To be pedantic... the absolute minimum time to explore the whole galaxy from Earth is about 80,000 light-years, because the farthest part of the galaxy is about 80,000 light-years away from us. Although to be even more pedantic, double that, because you can't really say you've explored until the information about what you've found has made it back to you.
To be more pedantic, you don't necessarily have to send out probes or wait for signals from the outer reaches of the galaxy to reach us, because they've been sending a huge number of frequencies for the last 80,000 years already. Since almost everything "interesting" out there is rotating and/or orbiting something else, almost nothing is permanently invisible from our current location. We just need more, bigger, and more sensitive sensor arrays. While this plays with the definition of "exploring", it can be argued that nothing is ever truly explored in terms of visiting every location, and often most things are explored remotely by observation.
That argument just gets a retaliation of "Lennin, Stalin, Mao!" What you really need to distinguish between are fascists, normal people, and anarchists. The political spectrum has at least two dimensions, of which right and left (conservative and liberal) are only one. If up and down is used for the second dimension then fascist regimes belong way down on the bottom, with libertarians taking a high position somewhere below anarchists. The first dimension is social politics, and the second is personal freedom. Almost all violent people of any social political stance have been either at the very bottom or the very top of the freedom dimension. Normal people find somewhere in the middle where everyone's personal freedoms aren't mutually contradictory.
... the Vi vrs. Emacs war will make this little show look small.
The meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything is.... to determine which editor is actually superior. Cosmic wars shall be fought, and in the end, emacs shall triumph! (can you tell which side I'm on?)
Slashdot Mirror
If BofA periodically did not show the image and then warned the user they had made a mistake by entering their password, users would soon be trained to look for the image. Setting up a security system once and then not reinforcing it periodically so that users take it seriously is the probelm.
So what are they going to do, put a "try again" button on the You Made A Mistake Page? All that will do is annoy the hell out of users, and the phisher who most likely has explored the entire site will have an even easier job. Just phish the password and make the "try again" button redirect to the real bankofamerica.com site. In either case, BoA would be stuck with thousands of angry customers wondering why they were trying to trick them by not showing the sitekey.
This statement is so confused. The Constitution grants individuals all rights not specifically enumerated (Ninth Amendment).
Talk about confusion. If the Constitution grants rights to people, who or what granted that right to the Constitution to begin with? People have natural rights, not governments or the pieces of paper that define them. What the constitution actually says is that the rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government (by the people who had those rights to begin with) are either granted to a state or remain with the People.
Is there a single Sci-fi movie, book, or TV series they DIDN'T lampoon in the first four seasons? The Fry-Leela love story ran its complete arc. Every character did everything people do in their 20s. Even the hottie trust fund chick is spoken for. Did I miss something?
Is there anything Futurama can't lampoon? As long as the characters keep their clichés funny and not annoying, they can time travel or visit alternate universes or just old new york to lampoon whatever they want. It's a funny and scathing social commentary like any of the great satirists have done, but with animated characters to do it because exposition doesn't work quite so well on TV as it does in books.
fox is stupid
Which probably means they didn't understand any of the jokes, either.
And Jesus we dressed funny. No, that half decade is an era best left bygone alrighty.
I can tell a true singulatarian when I see one!
One of the challenges with SMP scalability is cache coherency; synchronizing the caches on the processors is a costly operation (this is necessary to ensure that each processor has the same view of certain memory at the same time), normally (always?) done with a cache invalidation.
Opterons with Hypertransport use the MOESI cache coherency protocol to exchange data between core caches without invalidation back to main memory. I have not looked into the actual semantics of the instructions (and the LOCK prefix) to see exactly how they impact cache coherency though.
If I drive a car, or heck use a toaster. Isn't it legal for me to give the product to a mechanic or someone versed in the art to check whether it's safe or not?
Probably only if you own it. If you don't own it, there's a chance that it could be damaged and you would be liable for the damage. in the case of Windows, you don't own it thanks to copyright law, so if you "damage" the DRM during testing it you could be liable for that damage. How one can damage something doomed to failure to begin with I have no idea. Apparently simply declaring (to the world at large) exactly how it is doomed to failure with enough specificity is illegal according to the DMCA.
What if the relay routes SSL as well, with a certificate generated on the server? You'll get a warning that the cert isn't properly signed but most people don't understand these warnings and click OK anyway.
Your ISP or any router in between could do the same thing anywhere, anytime you're on the Internet. If you don't check the SSL certificate, it's your own fault.
Just connect to https://gmail.google.com As far as I can tell it keeps everything in the SSL session as long as you use it. Of course everything you sent and received went through the public Internet at one point anyway...
...who secretly rolled their eyes and promised self to find cooler friends....
Out of a set of 2030 possible people, right?
I am glad the summary thought best to inform us that all that are not male, are female.
No, it just means robots haven't started autonomously downloading movies yet.
Even if it turns your stomach to think about it, what he was *supposed* to do, under the ethical system that he presumably embraced, was to have sex with his lawful wife or not at all...
I suppose that's why they shot JFK after all... Honestly, do you really think that one of the president's duties to his country is to only screw the "right" people? As opposed to say, not starting illegal wars or trying to destroy habeas corpus?
It's freaky watching how far Clinton's legacy has rolled things back. Because of his pathological sexual practices, people like you have grown up in an environment where Sexual Harassment and Power Relationships are totally blurred and viewed as irrelevant. It's almost like the Women's movement never happened.
I suppose it's wrong to assume that a woman might want to have sex with the president, and that she might have a right to? I abhor sexual abuse and harassment, but plenty of people get off on having some sort of asymmetric social relationship, either by class or wealth or power. So long as people realize it's just a mental sex aid and no abuse occurs, who's to judge them? The women's movement was about having equality, not about preventing certain types of people from having consensual sex.
I think the only way to save the United States from eventual collapse at the hands of dictators is for the people to rise up against the currently elected officials and simply vote them out of office. For example if you usually vote Democrat, vote Green instead. If you usually vote Republican, vote Libertarian instead. If you can't identify with any existing independent party, create your own that's based on freedom and liberty and try to attract a candidate to run.
The way I see it, 50% of the population voted, with the votes being almost equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Statistically, this means 50% of the country is on the right, and %50 on the left, and half of those think the entire process is either broken or impossible to influence. The latter is patently false. If the people who didn't vote in the previous election came out and voted for third party candidates, there is a very good chance that a majority of electoral seats would go to third party candidates simply because people suddenly deciding to vote will probably go for a third party candidate as the only hope of changing things, while a few of the people who voted in the previous election will switch to third party candidates.
For such a scenario to work, both the left and the right would have to produce viable third party candidates. In reality, this is just a matter of perception and not actual skill as previous Two Party elections have proven. Internet campaigns and grass roots efforts would have to bring the candidates to the attention of the general public.
As far as I can tell the reason third party candidates have failed in the past has mostly been because voters on the candidate's side of the political section have been afraid to "throw their vote away" and let the opposing Two Party candidate win. If two strong third party candidates are running on both the left and the right, voters will be much more willing to vote for who they really want, instead of for the lesser evil. The biggest problem with this whole idea is simply convincing the general public that it will work, and of course finding viable third party candidates. To be honest, I have no good ideas for who those candidates should be, but that's not really important. What's important is that qualified candidates believe that such a strategy could work, and decide to run as a third party candidate. That's all I'm asking for, some choice. We have two years, that should be enough time for any number of candidates to compete and let the public decide who their favorites are.
I may be overly optimistic, but I don't see any other way to fix the American political system.
Clinton got impeached for committing perjury in a sexual harassment case. He is a habitual sexual harasser.
I suppose by that you mean he committed sexual harassment because he was in a position of authority over the women he had sex with. Well, guess what? He was the fucking governor and then the president! In the first case, what's he supposed to do, just screw other governors? It'd be sexual abuse for a senator to sleep with him... As president, he has to sleep with Margaret Thatcher? I think what you really mean is that Clinton was a guy who had sex with more women than most neocons do in their entire lives, who subsequently got very jealous.
Because I don't want to be storing and pushing around 64 bits of address pointer when half that's enough, it's a waste of memory, bandwidth, power... I don't attempt MMIO on multi-gig files or mapping more than 4gig virtual memory to a single process. If I need values extending 32 bits, I use on of the >32bit registers that have existed on "32bit" x86 processors for years.
One of the biggest advantages of the new 64 bit chips from Intel and AMD is that they have twice as many general purpose and SIMD registers now. This greatly increases the efficiency of just about any software compiled to use all of them, but you need a 64-bit operating system that knows how to save all the extra registers on context switches.
Additionally, 4GB DIMMS are here, and most people recommend running with at least 2GB if possible. In just a couple years it's likely that 4 or 8 GB will be the new standard, essentially ending the era of pure 32 bit processors.
What he did crack is one software based player. There's now a difference. Key holders will now revoke the keys for that particular player, so it won't play newer movies anymore. There's no crack yet that would defeat the entire protection scheme.
Sure there is. Every software player will be equally vulnerable to this same attack, so realistically any software player will be hackable to extract keys for any HD content it can play. The real reason for this is that AES requires the key schedule to be available pretty much continuously to decrypt the content before decoding and playing it. My guess is that these software players just build the 80 word key schedule in memory and leave it there, making it very vulnerable to attack. It doesn't help that the first four words of the schedule are the original 128-bit decryption key, either. The only way around the simple memory scanning attack is to xor some constant with each word of the key schedule, and xor it back out at some point in the decryption algorithm. The big problem is that anyone attacking it beyond a simple memory scanning attack will easily be able to find the decryption routines and figure out how the key schedule is being mangled and recover the original key. The easiest way is just to profile the decoder. A significant percentage of the total processing (maybe 5 to 10 percent) will be due to decryption, with the majority of the time spent decoding the audio/video stream.
The only real solution for DRM is to force the video card to decrypt and decode the movie onboard, which seems to be the direction Microsoft and the MPAA want manufacturers to go. That basically means including an entire HD player inside every video card just to watch HD content. It won't be viable for copy protection for a few years when everyone has the chance to buy new video cards. It will still be vulnerable to HDCP attacks, which while they require actual hardware to circumvent won't prevent any pirates from ripping movies, and few audio/video enthusiasts who know where to get their hardware. If I ever bother buying HD media, I won't do it until I can rip the content to my RAID, which will need a little upgrade to store many 25GB movies anyway.
The rule is in place simply because it makes the game fair, fun, and profitable. We could change it if we desired, if we all decided that we wanted our stock markets to be most profitable to spammers.
Who says day trading isn't just a form of pump-and-dump? If you tell people to invest in a stock to make the price go up, and then buy low and sell high, isn't that pretty much what the market is about? The difference between these stock spams and corporate press releases is just that the spam sways the stupid investors, and the press releases sway the semi-stupid investors. Smart investors don't listen to press releases or spams, they diversify. Which law prevents companies or individuals from taking advantage of the less-than-smart investors?
Some of the e-mail claims are things impossible to actually know unless the creator is violating the insider trading rules or those conflict of interest rules you mentioned. In many cases, the only possible way they can not be guilty of insider trading is if they are making the claims up, which is good old fashioned fraud. So they can be charged, on the well established legal principle that it's still OK to charge someone with a crime even if their only way of proving they didn't do that crime is to admit to another one (Or in legal latin: Sucksem tuem beum youous).
How is a stock spam predicting great immediate growth different from a press release predicting great immediate growth? In both cases the spammer and the company have a vested interest in seeing the stock rise in the short term for whatever reason. Generally the SEC isn't too worried about companies issuing press releases saying that their stock is going to go up, even if the executives are selling stock like mad with pre-scheduled sells. I don't know of any law requiring companies or individuals to tell the complete truth about future plans for the company. Almost every company looking to get bought out tries to drive their stock price as high as possible before the buyout, even if the merger will result in a drastic drop in price. What's the difference?
Stock Spammers often make false claims - sometimes fraudulent, sometimes libelous (for ex. claims a company's last quarterly report intentionally under-reports the companies projected profits so as to create a big opportunity are false claims that a CEO, CFO, and accounting firm have all lied to the SEC, that's certainly libelous to those individuals.). Some claims of DOD or intelligence agency type government contracts, (or occasionally even DOE related ones), if actually true, would also involve revealing seriously classified information. Naturally, the government has an interest in people effectively claiming to know classified info. Some claims regarding intra-corporate lawsuits, particularly over IP, may violate standing court orders, gag orders, and the like, or even constitute extortion by threat of legal action.
I doubt most stock spam actually commits fraud. At worst it's just speculation. The implication with any stock is that past performance does not indicate future results. Hearsay predictions of future events at a given company are widespread in magazines, newspapers, and blogs. Lots of people who think a stock is going to jump in price say so, and also invest in it because they believe what they say. How is it any different for stock spammers who know the price will jump to advertise the fact that they know it? They are usually unaffiliated with the company in question, so there's no insider trading. Even though they know the real reason the stock price will jump (people are suckers), they don't have to explicitly state it that way. All they need to claim is that the market for a given stock will be hot on Monday because of increased activity on Friday. Suckers will provide all the rest. In regards to libel, there was plenty of information in the news about Worldcom and Enron before they were actually proven to have committed the acts they were accused of, and numerous companies have been accused of things that are never proven, so how do you prove libel in a spam that does essentially the same thing?
The whole point of the stock market is that nothing comes with any guarantees, every investor carries the full responsibility and risk for his or her actions. Is it reasonable to expect that the law should protect stupid people from making poor choices? The only reason one investor would tell another to invest in some stock is that the first investor expects to make a profit, quite possibly at the expense of other investors. That is just such a simple, basic assumption about the stock market that anyone who can't figure it out is probably quite stupid. Does that mean they should be prevented from investing money, or that the initial investor loo
Thereby they reinforce this strange mafia way of making money and worst of all they make sure that loads of spam will keep on putting even more pressure on the internet.
Here's the thing I don't understand. If a group of people get together and buy the same stock, and tell their friends to buy the stock, so long as none of them are prohibited from doing so due to conflict of interest, where is the illegality? If a group of people get together and buy stock and tell everyone on the Internet to buy it, where is the illegality? If a company IPOs, issues their executive officers stock, and tells investors everywhere to buy their stock, where is the illegality?
Snow Crash would make for an awful movie. There's far too much expositionary material regarding namshubs and so forth that would be interminable on the screen and couldn't be cut without rendering much of the story incomprehensible.
Just use the Library to fill in the gaps, which is pretty much what the book does. What is there to know besides the idea that there was a deeply ingrained base language at some point that got turned off, and that a virus can re-enable it? Movies necessarily have less depth, because you can't just flip back a few pages for things to make sense.
...depends on the order in which your pursue them. It's lucky that law isn't based on anything like logic where the order of facts makes no difference to whether or not they are true.
I'm not sure what you mean. If the lawyers for GEMA say "Websites allowing users to upload copyrighted media can be sued for infringement, therefore we are suing sharing websites X, Y, and Z for letting users upload copyrighted material" before they say "Rapidshare is a website allowing users to upload copyrighted media, and was successfully sued", they have no precedent. It's always easier and cheaper to try a single case for precedent rather than start dozens of lawsuits all at once.
In logic the same holds true. Without lemmas, theorems can't be proven true. There are always a sequence of steps in a proof, all of which are necessary for the final theorem to be proved.
To be pedantic ... the absolute minimum time to explore the whole galaxy from Earth is about 80,000 light-years, because the farthest part of the galaxy is about 80,000 light-years away from us. Although to be even more pedantic, double that, because you can't really say you've explored until the information about what you've found has made it back to you.
To be more pedantic, you don't necessarily have to send out probes or wait for signals from the outer reaches of the galaxy to reach us, because they've been sending a huge number of frequencies for the last 80,000 years already. Since almost everything "interesting" out there is rotating and/or orbiting something else, almost nothing is permanently invisible from our current location. We just need more, bigger, and more sensitive sensor arrays. While this plays with the definition of "exploring", it can be argued that nothing is ever truly explored in terms of visiting every location, and often most things are explored remotely by observation.
Yup, all radical leftists!
That argument just gets a retaliation of "Lennin, Stalin, Mao!" What you really need to distinguish between are fascists, normal people, and anarchists. The political spectrum has at least two dimensions, of which right and left (conservative and liberal) are only one. If up and down is used for the second dimension then fascist regimes belong way down on the bottom, with libertarians taking a high position somewhere below anarchists. The first dimension is social politics, and the second is personal freedom. Almost all violent people of any social political stance have been either at the very bottom or the very top of the freedom dimension. Normal people find somewhere in the middle where everyone's personal freedoms aren't mutually contradictory.
... the Vi vrs. Emacs war will make this little show look small.
The meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything is.... to determine which editor is actually superior. Cosmic wars shall be fought, and in the end, emacs shall triumph! (can you tell which side I'm on?)