The article really sounds like it was designed to dissuade people from ever cloning a human. The first page did sound like reasonable scientific presentations, but once I got to the second page, with its grotesque descriptions and subtle language tricks, it really is obvious that this is simple anti-cloning propaganda.
I don't think I buy the argument that it is really the 'rapid' duplication causing the problems, although it can certainly be one source of error. There is already a substantial body of scientific evidence of DNA deteriorating over time within a healthy organism. Every time a cell divides, errors are introduced, and every genetic error increases the possibility of a medical problem.
When you clone an animal, you are starting with 'corrupted' DNA, which understandably causes a lot of problems after further duplication. This was thought to be the source of many of the problems with 'Dolly' the sheep.
This problem could be possibly be solved by using DNA extracted from the very young.
But, of course, the article doesn't want you to consider this as a possibility, and uses subtle language to undermine the credibility of those who may support the cloning of humans.
For example, after decrying the evils of human cloning, they say that there are scientists proposing the cloning of humans (Dr. Zavos and Dr. Antinori) but that "Academic scientists say they would not dare to think of cloning a human at this time." Are these two not academic? Then why was their recent workshop sponsored by a Rome university? Zavos is even a Professor Emeritus from the University of Kentucky. His credentials are solid, but the article attempts to paint him as a quack.
The end of the article reminds us that House hearings will be starting shortly regarding human cloning. Is this a bit of a 'call-to-arms' by the NYTimes?
I love the fact that this article keeps describing the web page designer as a "computer whiz". It really does wonders for the credibility of the author...
Now, while the signing of a noncompete agreement doesn't make a lot of sense when you're working in a generic IT/maintenance job, it often makes a GREAT deal of sense when working in a more specific technology company.
If I hire an engineer to develop products for me, I am absolutely within my rights and reason to ask that they do not perform the same services for a competitor for a certain time after their employment with me expires. Otherwise, it would be very easy for someone to come into my company, soak up my technology, business plans, and clients, and then give me the finger as he or she leaves to a cushy job at my main competitor, who would be happy to pay a premium for my business secrets.
Proving that information was moved from one company to another is almost impossible - but a noncompete agreement can do a great deal to help maintain the employer's IP. Nothing wrong with that at all; I don't understand why people are decrying this so much.
A possible compromise is to list, in the contract, the specific industries or product areas which are off-limits. This would give the employer the protection they deserve with the flexibility the employee deserves.
These questions really have no real relevance, as the event will not occur. "What if all of the ink on all the books in the world magically disappeared? What then?"
Very nice commentary on other media sources here: Like so many Register stories, CPRM bypassed the trade press almost entirely en-route to the national and international media, where it made the front page of the San Jose Mercury, and was covered by many national inkies including The Times and The Independent. But look in vain for coverage on Wired, or the CMP networks, and apart from one tragic effort - which failed to mention the boycott - it went ignored by the CNet/ZDNet conglomerate too. That explains the title of our FAQ on the topic.
Well, believe it or not, ZDNet still refuses to tell you anything about CPRM. Today ZDNet reporter Rob Lemos (hi, Rob) turned in a sterling story on the subject, but it was published only on CNet's site, and not by ZDNet News. Keeping the news away from your readers is quite a challenge for news editors, and must merit some lovely glass Anti-Journalism gong all of its own.
From the article, it sounds like there is a legitimate grievance against a possible infringer. Taco, what is so special about fans that you consider them to be trivial and unpatentable?
A lot of expensive development goes into making good fans, and the company involved has every right to defend their IP. As an engineer, I'm disgusted that you would be so quick to trivialize it.
A patent application is kept at strict confidence with the Patent and Trademark office until it actually issues, and there are plenty of ways to cause a patent to delay issuance until the optimal time - in Rambus' case, after the standards were approved.
There should have been (wasn't there?) a clause in the standardization contract prohibiting this kind of scam, and this may be one angle of a legal action. The other companies involved also have a very ligitimate grievance for what were misrepresentations by Rambus, and they can also bring up the question of invention and design ownership, as it may actually have been the standards committee who invented the technology, not Rambus.
But I think you're completely wrong in assigning any blame whatsoever to the JEDEC - there was NO WAY they could have known there was a pending patent at the time.
As for the description of a standards committee meeting in a 'dark, smoky room', this kind of image is completely false. Standards are something created openly, and for the benefit of the industry as a whole.
This is Rambus' transgression, and noone else's.
Ah, so you are actually arguing that I should be paying 'security' or extortion money so that I'm not held up at gunpoint?
Please.
If I buy insurance, take care of myself, and have a lower risk of health problems, I should be paying less than someone who does not. Very simple. Genetic screening is simply another point of assessment.
In order to assess fair and suitable insurance premiums, insurance companies seek to assess the risk of a claim as accurately as possible, using whatever information is available. Family history and past medical history are entirely relevant sources of this information, and so is genetic information, AS LONG AS it is used objectively, and is well supported by data.
Insurance is a game of odds - any additional information used to assess them is a GOOD thing. Why, if my odds of making a claim are less than someone else's, should I have to pay the same as they do? I should be paying less.
As for your other rants ('freedom to choose a career', etc.) they're disregarded - no one is taking away anyone's opportunities. Get real.
It is completely unreasonable for the government to demand the expenditure of enormous amounts of time and money to ensure that people with disabilities can get every bit of information from these web sites.
That being said, I think it should be pretty easy to go through the images, add a discriptor to each, and maybe even make sure you aren't putting too much text in bitmaps. Perhaps for each important video presentation, add a text file commentary. Not for all of them, just a bunch.
That's not a lot of work at all, and can easily be done in six months. You don't have *that* many pages!
Anything more is a waste of your and my tax money.
I would say that this 'fact' is not at all unequivocal. Perhaps only to the ignorant or uninformed.
This is a real hack - and they left a message
on
Microsoft's DNS Down
·
· Score: 1
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 24, 2001 18:01:43 ET XXXXX
HACKERS' LEAVE BEHIND WARNING FOR MICROSOFT
Someone or something hacked the DNS Internet servers for MICROSOFT on Wednesday -- apparently bouncing-back traffic to the company's constellation of websites. The violators left behind a message, warning MICROSOFT that it should give up because the the Linux system "is God".
MSFT's main corporate Web site, its Hotmail.com site, auto sales site Carpoint.com, MSNBC and encyclopedia site Encarta.com were hit with traffic blocks on Wednesday.
The disjointed warning was still visible at Internic.Net, which catalogues and directs web domains:
Wednesday, January 24, 2001 05:35:12PM
WhoIs microsoft.com@whois.internic.net
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD. CO M
MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY. OR G
MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PAS .N U
MICROSOFT.COM.MUST.STOP.TAKEDRUGS.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SOON.GOING.TO.THE.DEATHCORPORAT IO N.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERR OR ISTS.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOTHING.BUT.A.MONSTER.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NO.MATCH.FOR.THE.UEBER-GEEKS.AT .J IMPHILLIPS.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BUT.LINUX.SUCKS-FOREVER.ART IS TICCHEESE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.BORING.COMPARED.TO.TEENEXTREME. CO M
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSIV ES.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.PSYKOJOKO.ON.A.ROOT-NETW OR K.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.GUTS.NL
MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TROI S. FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.ER.IKKE.NO.I.FORHOLD.TIL.LATHANS.N ET
MICROSOFT.COM.AINT.WORTH.SHIT.KLUGE.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM
This agency really has very little scientific (or any other) integrity, and appears to be little more than a political lobbying organization.
That said, the numbers they fabricate for what is perceived as global warming cannot be believed. There is simply NO evidence to support their claims. The models they rely on are not accurate, and there is no evidence that global warming is actually occurring.
Now, I'm certainly in favor of reducing emissions, but doing so because of the screams of the irrational is not the way to go about it. Until there is real evidence that a danger exists, there is no justification for imposing compulsory emissions reductions. It must be voluntary.
This appears to be nothing more than a ploy to get people to purchase more Dell components, and to further line the pockets of Lucasfilms. There's no indication that it will go to further the experience of the home PC user.
There's no evidence of any objective, published metric that may be used to certify the performance of a particular system, and even if they did attempt to make one, the variation in listening space of the home user (unlike a movie theater) is going to render those specifications essentially irrelevant.
I ask - how much money would it cost a vendor to say that they're THX-certified? Then we'll know what the real purpose is of the metric - it's my guess that Lucasfilm is just playing the old Dolby tricks, and extracting licensing fees to use the marketing logo.
What we may see is other vendors who will claim that they 'surpass' THX specifications, if they're ever actually published. I hope they do this, and do it without paying out royalties - Lucasfilm doesn't deserve them for this. Until they actually make a real technological contribution, they shouldn't get a dime.
It's a cop-out to blame the 'market conditions' in general, and unfair to put all the blame on the individual investors. I'll allow them a bit of the blame for being gullible, but the companies were at fault. You don't blame the shill for the game of the con-man.
I will agree that many investors were eagerly willing to play the game, but they were not doing so while being fully informed, and the companies had no trouble with allowing them to be mislead, at least until they cashed out their shares.
What do you think created this market nose-dive?? Hundreds of pumped-up, overvalued companies, and people finally realizing that there is no way these companies can sustain their market cap. Blaming 'the market' for the crash of these companies is a play on words - the companies themselves make up 'the market'. It's their own fault, and they're the ones to ultimately blame.
The companies prayed on the dumb investors, and I think most of them knew full well what they were doing. All they had to do was rationalize it a bit, and go shear the sheep. Thankfully, that's about over now, and people can get back to reality (despite many company's best attempts..)
So it's the shrill's fault for 'believing' the con-man?
How on earth is the merit of either company real? They're losing millions a year, and have absolutely no prospects for profitability. If the hype surrounding them was never justified, why are the insiders justified in cashing in on the misconceptions of the public? Shouldn't have they been using every dollar to make the company 'real' and profitable?
I posted what I consider a well reasoned, plausible scenario, which is largely evidenced by the facts surrounding the story.
It should not have been considered flaimbait - I had to point out that there is another perspective to this story which has apparently escaped a lot of people.
Instead of just rating it down, how about actually attempting to rationally argue the points I've made? Can you?
1. VA Linux notices hot market for IPO's
2. VA sees lots of others making huge money from stock offerings
3. VA promotes Linux as 'next big thing'
4. VA associates itself with being the bringer of Linux
5. VA uses Slashdot to bolster that perception by the public
6. VA misleads people into thinking that they actually can provide real value, and be a profitable company.
7. Unwitting investors believe this, and buy the stock.
8. Slashdot founders get millions.
9. VA insiders cash out their options, reaping millions of their own (along with the VC's)
(The CEO, Larry Augustin, made off with $10 Million of stockholder money)
10. VA Linux stock crashes, as they have no possible way of justifying the market cap.
11. VA Linux stock loses 95% of its value
12. The shareholders get pissed off
13. Lawyers find a way for some people to recoup their losses
14. The people who lost money eagerly go after VA.
Folks, do you have ANY idea how much money the VA insiders walked away with? Do you have any idea on WHOSE money that really was? Do you really think that the VA insiders actually earned it, or did they con the public into thinking there was real value?
If you con someone, is it the fault of the con-man, or the fault of the 'idiot', as you say?
This story is repeated every day with different companies. This may be flaimbait, but I think it is about time that company founders start accepting the consequences of misleading a gullible public.
[For the record, I never bought or sold a single share of stock in my life. I just watch with disgust, usually, at the behaviour of these hype-stock companies]
Re:Yes. This is worthy of slashdot.
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
Oh please.
It's trivial to encase the circuitry in some protectant, which is really going to be necessary anyway, 'nano' fabric or not.
I think the only reason the story made it to Slashdot is because of their propensity to post anything containing the prefix "nano". What a bunch of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
The article really sounds like it was designed to dissuade people from ever cloning a human. The first page did sound like reasonable scientific presentations, but once I got to the second page, with its grotesque descriptions and subtle language tricks, it really is obvious that this is simple anti-cloning propaganda.
I don't think I buy the argument that it is really the 'rapid' duplication causing the problems, although it can certainly be one source of error. There is already a substantial body of scientific evidence of DNA deteriorating over time within a healthy organism. Every time a cell divides, errors are introduced, and every genetic error increases the possibility of a medical problem.
When you clone an animal, you are starting with 'corrupted' DNA, which understandably causes a lot of problems after further duplication. This was thought to be the source of many of the problems with 'Dolly' the sheep.
This problem could be possibly be solved by using DNA extracted from the very young.
But, of course, the article doesn't want you to consider this as a possibility, and uses subtle language to undermine the credibility of those who may support the cloning of humans.
For example, after decrying the evils of human cloning, they say that there are scientists proposing the cloning of humans (Dr. Zavos and Dr. Antinori) but that "Academic scientists say they would not dare to think of cloning a human at this time." Are these two not academic? Then why was their recent workshop sponsored by a Rome university? Zavos is even a Professor Emeritus from the University of Kentucky. His credentials are solid, but the article attempts to paint him as a quack.
The end of the article reminds us that House hearings will be starting shortly regarding human cloning. Is this a bit of a 'call-to-arms' by the NYTimes?
I love the fact that this article keeps describing the web page designer as a "computer whiz". It really does wonders for the credibility of the author...
Hey mods, this guy has it right on. Strip some points from its parent and give 'em here!
Now, while the signing of a noncompete agreement doesn't make a lot of sense when you're working in a generic IT/maintenance job, it often makes a GREAT deal of sense when working in a more specific technology company.
If I hire an engineer to develop products for me, I am absolutely within my rights and reason to ask that they do not perform the same services for a competitor for a certain time after their employment with me expires. Otherwise, it would be very easy for someone to come into my company, soak up my technology, business plans, and clients, and then give me the finger as he or she leaves to a cushy job at my main competitor, who would be happy to pay a premium for my business secrets.
Proving that information was moved from one company to another is almost impossible - but a noncompete agreement can do a great deal to help maintain the employer's IP. Nothing wrong with that at all; I don't understand why people are decrying this so much.
A possible compromise is to list, in the contract, the specific industries or product areas which are off-limits. This would give the employer the protection they deserve with the flexibility the employee deserves.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
These questions really have no real relevance, as the event will not occur. "What if all of the ink on all the books in the world magically disappeared? What then?"
Time to work on getting better stories, guys.
Very nice commentary on other media sources here:
Like so many Register stories, CPRM bypassed the trade press almost entirely en-route to the national and international media, where it made the front page of the San Jose Mercury, and was covered by many national inkies including The Times and The Independent. But look in vain for coverage on Wired, or the CMP networks, and apart from one tragic effort - which failed to mention the boycott - it went ignored by the CNet/ZDNet conglomerate too. That explains the title of our FAQ on the topic.
Well, believe it or not, ZDNet still refuses to tell you anything about CPRM. Today ZDNet reporter Rob Lemos (hi, Rob) turned in a sterling story on the subject, but it was published only on CNet's site, and not by ZDNet News. Keeping the news away from your readers is quite a challenge for news editors, and must merit some lovely glass Anti-Journalism gong all of its own.
Ye gads, how long can they keep it up?
Nice post, thanks for explaining this so clearly.
From the article, it sounds like there is a legitimate grievance against a possible infringer. Taco, what is so special about fans that you consider them to be trivial and unpatentable?
A lot of expensive development goes into making good fans, and the company involved has every right to defend their IP. As an engineer, I'm disgusted that you would be so quick to trivialize it.
Just as I was looking forward to the day when my old, youthful rantings on USENET would be gone forever.
:)
Oh well. I'll just have to keep denying it was me...
A patent application is kept at strict confidence with the Patent and Trademark office until it actually issues, and there are plenty of ways to cause a patent to delay issuance until the optimal time - in Rambus' case, after the standards were approved. There should have been (wasn't there?) a clause in the standardization contract prohibiting this kind of scam, and this may be one angle of a legal action. The other companies involved also have a very ligitimate grievance for what were misrepresentations by Rambus, and they can also bring up the question of invention and design ownership, as it may actually have been the standards committee who invented the technology, not Rambus. But I think you're completely wrong in assigning any blame whatsoever to the JEDEC - there was NO WAY they could have known there was a pending patent at the time. As for the description of a standards committee meeting in a 'dark, smoky room', this kind of image is completely false. Standards are something created openly, and for the benefit of the industry as a whole. This is Rambus' transgression, and noone else's.
Ah, so you are actually arguing that I should be paying 'security' or extortion money so that I'm not held up at gunpoint?
Please.
If I buy insurance, take care of myself, and have a lower risk of health problems, I should be paying less than someone who does not. Very simple. Genetic screening is simply another point of assessment.
Your 'Randian' ways, if they ever existed, have softened enough to easily slither down the toilet.
Why should I have to be responsible for her kids, at the point of a gun?
To use your language...
In order to assess fair and suitable insurance premiums, insurance companies seek to assess the risk of a claim as accurately as possible, using whatever information is available. Family history and past medical history are entirely relevant sources of this information, and so is genetic information, AS LONG AS it is used objectively, and is well supported by data.
Insurance is a game of odds - any additional information used to assess them is a GOOD thing. Why, if my odds of making a claim are less than someone else's, should I have to pay the same as they do? I should be paying less.
As for your other rants ('freedom to choose a career', etc.) they're disregarded - no one is taking away anyone's opportunities. Get real.
It is completely unreasonable for the government to demand the expenditure of enormous amounts of time and money to ensure that people with disabilities can get every bit of information from these web sites.
That being said, I think it should be pretty easy to go through the images, add a discriptor to each, and maybe even make sure you aren't putting too much text in bitmaps. Perhaps for each important video presentation, add a text file commentary. Not for all of them, just a bunch.
That's not a lot of work at all, and can easily be done in six months. You don't have *that* many pages!
Anything more is a waste of your and my tax money.
I would say that this 'fact' is not at all unequivocal. Perhaps only to the ignorant or uninformed.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 24, 2001 18:01:43 ET XXXXX
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
. CO M
. OR G
S .N U
T IO N.COM
R OR ISTS.NET
T .J IMPHILLIPS.ORG
T IS TICCHEESE.COM
. CO M
V ES .NET
W OR K.COM
I S. FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
N ET
HACKERS' LEAVE BEHIND WARNING FOR MICROSOFT
Someone or something hacked the DNS Internet servers for MICROSOFT on Wednesday -- apparently bouncing-back traffic to the company's constellation of websites. The violators left behind a message, warning MICROSOFT that it should give up because the the Linux system "is God".
MSFT's main corporate Web site, its Hotmail.com site, auto sales site Carpoint.com, MSNBC and encyclopedia site Encarta.com were hit with traffic blocks on Wednesday.
The disjointed warning was still visible at Internic.Net, which catalogues and directs web domains:
Wednesday, January 24, 2001 05:35:12PM
WhoIs microsoft.com@whois.internic.net
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD
MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY
MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PA
MICROSOFT.COM.MUST.STOP.TAKEDRUGS.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SOON.GOING.TO.THE.DEATHCORPORA
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TER
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOTHING.BUT.A.MONSTER.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NO.MATCH.FOR.THE.UEBER-GEEKS.A
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BUT.LINUX.SUCKS-FOREVER.AR
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.BORING.COMPARED.TO.TEENEXTREME
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSI
MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.PSYKOJOKO.ON.A.ROOT-NET
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.GUTS.NL
MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TRO
MICROSOFT.COM.ER.IKKE.NO.I.FORHOLD.TIL.LATHANS.
MICROSOFT.COM.AINT.WORTH.SHIT.KLUGE.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM
This agency really has very little scientific (or any other) integrity, and appears to be little more than a political lobbying organization.
That said, the numbers they fabricate for what is perceived as global warming cannot be believed. There is simply NO evidence to support their claims. The models they rely on are not accurate, and there is no evidence that global warming is actually occurring.
Now, I'm certainly in favor of reducing emissions, but doing so because of the screams of the irrational is not the way to go about it. Until there is real evidence that a danger exists, there is no justification for imposing compulsory emissions reductions. It must be voluntary.
For a much more thorough treatment, visit Globalwarming.org
This appears to be nothing more than a ploy to get people to purchase more Dell components, and to further line the pockets of Lucasfilms. There's no indication that it will go to further the experience of the home PC user.
There's no evidence of any objective, published metric that may be used to certify the performance of a particular system, and even if they did attempt to make one, the variation in listening space of the home user (unlike a movie theater) is going to render those specifications essentially irrelevant.
I ask - how much money would it cost a vendor to say that they're THX-certified? Then we'll know what the real purpose is of the metric - it's my guess that Lucasfilm is just playing the old Dolby tricks, and extracting licensing fees to use the marketing logo.
What we may see is other vendors who will claim that they 'surpass' THX specifications, if they're ever actually published. I hope they do this, and do it without paying out royalties - Lucasfilm doesn't deserve them for this. Until they actually make a real technological contribution, they shouldn't get a dime.
It's a cop-out to blame the 'market conditions' in general, and unfair to put all the blame on the individual investors. I'll allow them a bit of the blame for being gullible, but the companies were at fault. You don't blame the shill for the game of the con-man.
I will agree that many investors were eagerly willing to play the game, but they were not doing so while being fully informed, and the companies had no trouble with allowing them to be mislead, at least until they cashed out their shares.
What do you think created this market nose-dive?? Hundreds of pumped-up, overvalued companies, and people finally realizing that there is no way these companies can sustain their market cap. Blaming 'the market' for the crash of these companies is a play on words - the companies themselves make up 'the market'. It's their own fault, and they're the ones to ultimately blame.
The companies prayed on the dumb investors, and I think most of them knew full well what they were doing. All they had to do was rationalize it a bit, and go shear the sheep. Thankfully, that's about over now, and people can get back to reality (despite many company's best attempts..)
ah, you figured me out. heh.
- Bill G.
So it's the shrill's fault for 'believing' the con-man?
How on earth is the merit of either company real? They're losing millions a year, and have absolutely no prospects for profitability. If the hype surrounding them was never justified, why are the insiders justified in cashing in on the misconceptions of the public? Shouldn't have they been using every dollar to make the company 'real' and profitable?
I posted what I consider a well reasoned, plausible scenario, which is largely evidenced by the facts surrounding the story.
It should not have been considered flaimbait - I had to point out that there is another perspective to this story which has apparently escaped a lot of people.
Instead of just rating it down, how about actually attempting to rationally argue the points I've made? Can you?
Larry Augustin only made off with $9,612,905 according to Yahoo Finance, not $10 Million, as I had earlier reported.
Sorry, mea culpa.
Other insiders, and their 'earned' income:
Rob Russo (VP): $6,698,959
(While working only part-time - he's VP of two other companies as well.)
Bruce Twickler: $7,998,487
Not to shabby for a company which has made almost no contribution to the technological world, and has never earned a dime.
I expect we'll be seeing a lot more anger from stockholders as they realize they've been had..
A more likely scenario, from another perspective:
1. VA Linux notices hot market for IPO's
2. VA sees lots of others making huge money from stock offerings
3. VA promotes Linux as 'next big thing'
4. VA associates itself with being the bringer of Linux
5. VA uses Slashdot to bolster that perception by the public
6. VA misleads people into thinking that they actually can provide real value, and be a profitable company.
7. Unwitting investors believe this, and buy the stock.
8. Slashdot founders get millions.
9. VA insiders cash out their options, reaping millions of their own (along with the VC's)
(The CEO, Larry Augustin, made off with $10 Million of stockholder money)
10. VA Linux stock crashes, as they have no possible way of justifying the market cap.
11. VA Linux stock loses 95% of its value
12. The shareholders get pissed off
13. Lawyers find a way for some people to recoup their losses
14. The people who lost money eagerly go after VA.
Folks, do you have ANY idea how much money the VA insiders walked away with? Do you have any idea on WHOSE money that really was? Do you really think that the VA insiders actually earned it, or did they con the public into thinking there was real value?
If you con someone, is it the fault of the con-man, or the fault of the 'idiot', as you say?
This story is repeated every day with different companies. This may be flaimbait, but I think it is about time that company founders start accepting the consequences of misleading a gullible public.
[For the record, I never bought or sold a single share of stock in my life. I just watch with disgust, usually, at the behaviour of these hype-stock companies]
Oh please.
It's trivial to encase the circuitry in some protectant, which is really going to be necessary anyway, 'nano' fabric or not.
I think the only reason the story made it to Slashdot is because of their propensity to post anything containing the prefix "nano". What a bunch of crap.