The point is that to get a green card you must be cleared with the FBI, have almost every cavity of your body manually inspected, your picture and fingerprints taken and have a full medical check-up. So, what's the point of taking picture and fingerprints again every time a green card holder crosses the border? Do you really feel safer because DHS do it?
I am wondering whether altering web pages by inserting ads changes the ISP status of common carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier) thereby exposing it to liability for crimes and/or infringement perpetrated by its customers. Any takers?
People have sunk objects with the purpose of protecting coasts for hundreds of years. For example see http://www.vitiaz.ru/congress/en/thesis/149.html. Also there is a big ship that was sunk in front of Venice hundreds of years ago to limit the tidal effects.
Defectivity (i.e. the "dust problem") is just one of the yield detractors. There are many more and they get worse and worse. For instance, there are litho problems, etching problems, CMP problems, not to mention gate leakage, and a bunch of other parametric issues. So, you can not just look at defectivity. Even if you did, with a smaller feature size, small particles that could be tolerated in an older generation will now cause yield loss.
PS: the distribution you are talking about is a poisson distribution
You have a very valid point: hard to say, though. Volume was so much higher that I have to believe that a lot of it is arbitrageurs. This is such an easy merger to predict. But this is only a gut feeling that I can't support with hard data.
Here is the best I can do to estimate. The stock price of YHOO and MSFT are roughly the same. Merger arbitrageurs go long on target and short on acquirer. Average volume for MSFT is 100M shares/day, Friday it was roughly 300M shares, so let's say that 3/4 of them were short sells of arbitrageurs. This leaves with 150M shares sold short. In a one to one ratio this means 150M YHOO shares, i.e. 10% of YHOO shares. So, my gut feeling tells me somewhere between 10 and 20%. That's the best I can do with no hard data.
Obviously, what you say is entirely possible. But even with a white knight defense, the acquirer better offer more than MS or it'll be a proxy fight and a gazillion lawsuits. From the point of view of the investor, it doesn't make a difference. Higher offer wins.
Having said that, there are plenty of anti-takeover defenses. From the "Nancy Reagan defense" (just say no), to staggered boards, to poison pills (Yahoo has one). As Peoplesoft teaches, there is nothing that can stop an acquirer determined to buy at whatever price.
Now, some math to predict what's gonna happen. There are roughly 1.5B shares. 25% of the shares changed hands on Friday. You can bet that most of them, say 20%,ended up on the hands of arbitrageurs. Legg Mason, a hedge fund has 8% and 11% are in the hands of another hedge fund. That makes 40% of the shares in the hands of people in search of the highest return, and screw everybody else. Most of the institutional holders are generally sympathetic to management, but they hold roughly 50% of the company (excluding the two hedge funds I mentioned before and what they sold in these few days). MS only needs another 10%. If MS are smart, they have already accumulated at least 5% (they have 10 days to report any ownership higher than 5% to SEC). Now on Jan 29 and 30 the stock volume spiked. Just the excess volume (over average) is 10% of the shares. Any guess who may have bought those shares? Watch for MS coming out next week with a 10% ownership.
So, let's say that Yang doesn't want to sell. He's got little or no stock. Filo has 5% of the Yahoo stock. The board may be loyal to Yang, but it must be very careful because the Revlon Duties have been triggered and they impose no loyalty. Once the company is in play, the CEO counts only as much as he can control the board.
So, here is what's gonna happen: if MS doesn't raise the price enough and Yahoo sells, MS (or another acquirer) and the hedge funds stay below 15% ownership to not trigger the poison pill. At the upcoming shareholders meeting (should be in May or June), a proxy fight erupts, and MS asks the poison pill to be repealed. The arbitrageurs vote yes, and somebody buys Yahoo. Most likely MS, but if somebody else has $50-60B, why not? The hedge funds don't care who wins as long as the company is sold.
They are just jacking up the price. The company will be sold. Once a company is in play, it is very hard to take it off the market.
Once the directors receive an offer, it is their duty to figure out whether their shareholders are better off with Yahoo alone or not. If they figure out that it is better selling (I am sure they did already), it is their obligation under current Delaware law to auction the company. That's exactly what they are doing. There isn't a single transaction that closes at the starting price.
If the directors decide that it is better going alone, it will end up with a Proxy fight and a lot of lawsuits (those will happen anyway)
Right now, arbitrageurs are going long on Yahoo and short on MS.
While I am no fan of AT&T, and certainly agree that the cost of an SMS is outrageous by any standard, but the article contains several fallacies.
The most common fallacy is mistaking the marginal cost of sending one SMS with the total cost. The marginal cost is basically zero, which is the point of the article. However, AT&T pays for a bunch of items that at a first approximation don't vary with the number of SMS sent through the network. There are many ways to account for these costs and there are entire university classes which deal with this type of calculations. However, when your network costs few billion dollars, a billion here, a billion there, soon we are talking about real money. The same applies to marketing costs, customer support, etc.
The author conveniently forgets that there is also a termination fee that a provider pays when messages originating from one network (e.g. AT&T) are delivered to phones on a different network (e.g. T-Mobile). So, some messages cost more, raising the overall average. Same apply for roaming charges, if any.
The author also miscalculates the number of bytes necessary to send an SMS conveniently forgetting the envelope, i.e. phone number of the sender, subject, time, etc. I am sure that his ISP doesn't subtract overhead from the 500GB of data he pays for.
Also, the author takes an average of 80 characters for the cost of SMS and compares them with the max number of words/characters you can send via US mail. An unfair comparison.
All in all, all fallacies skew the numbers towards the point that the author is trying to make, which is quite unethical. It is also stupid because a fair comparison would totally support his point, just with slightly less astounding numbers.
I wouldn't sign it. If you want to, remember that any contract can be changed before it is signed. So, you can tell your employer "I would make changes X and Y" and they can change it. You can even strike sections you don't like with a pen before signing it. As long as the other company is ok, you are good.
Actually, I have to correct you. The update changes the IMEI code (a unique code for each phone) to a know invalid code. The code is very easy to check, so they can tell very quickly if you unlocked your iPhone or not. It sucks, but that's the way it is (at least for a while)
When you purchase an iPhone you are not signing anything (other than a credit card slip). Hence, you have not entered in a contract with AT&T, so whatever AT&T spokesperson says, it is not tenable. Furthermore, unlocking one's phone is not illegal in the US.
Here are some more details that you may want to consider: a user who doesn't know about it will not be pleased and could also be scared. I can tolerate it, my wife can't. My iPhone is heavily modded hers isn't.
Some examples on the address book:
- if you use windows (don't know about mac) and you add an entry to your address book directly on the iPhone, it is not synchronized back,so when you restore from your address book, all the entries you added are gone.
- If you associated pictures to your address book, the association is gone; same for ringtones;
All I am saying is that until Apple creates and SDK and signs application, adding apps is not for every user. And even an experienced user may find it very annoying. Configuring all the features is a major pain...
The danger here is that an iphone update could wipe out not only your changes, but also your ringtones, your address book etc. The reason is that the software update performs an integrity check. If the check fails the update reinstalls the operating system.
It happened to me, but I expected it. A "regular" user may not appreciate.
Because you don't know if you will get it one day. If you get it and you are not rich, you won't be able to survive. It is a way for society to spread risk across individuals. It is(used to be?) the most efficient way to solve the problem.
Basically you have to connect the iphone to a computer, run a program called jailbreak that makes the file system readable and writable. Then you just copy files here and there on the iphone. Turn off and on and you will have an icon to the emulator on your screen. More details: you take the files in the zip and install them into the directory/Applications, you add the application to the list of applications to be shown on the screen by editing a file called DisplayOrder.plist, and finally you chmod +x the NESApp.
Yes it is checking the install for integrity... and it looks like it wipes out phones with some mods. It is not clear yet what mods trigger a complete wipe. It looks like ringtones and minor mods will survive the update. People are still testing.
I run linux at home. I didn't even let the Comcast guy touch my computers. I asked him to leave the modem and I did the installation by myself. You just adjust a couple of parameters on the modem, you call them with the serial number of the modem, they activate it and you are done.
They require windows or whatever just in case you don't know what you are doing. In that case, you run their wizard it does all for you.
I'd like to point out that what Brazil did is actually legal under TRIPS. TRIPS is the treaty that regulates Intellectual Property world-wide. The same treaty under which so many other cases are prosecuted. One of the TRIPS provision states that a number of countries can exercise compulsory patenting on pharmaceuticals for a number of years (I believe 15, but I am not sure). It was done to lure many countries into the treaty.
While this is clearly a joke, the problem is real. There are plenty of reliability effects like electromigration andNBTI that depend upon device aging. These issues wouldn't manifest as in the TFA (although it is conceivable that the clock signal could degrade too), but as overall performance degradation.
As much as I don't like Walmart, apparently, there are plenty of people who could get better stuff and pay more at other stores, but indeed they buy the crap from China. Three explanations: it is not so crappy, it is crap with a better quality/price ratio, or Americans are stupid. Which one?
For the same token, getting an H1-B is expensive and frustrating, but companies (usually run by Americans) still go through the hassle. Why? Maybe they can't really get the quality they are looking for, or, at least, not enough of it.
Finally, next time you use Google remember Sergey Brin, born in Russia. Next time you use Yahoo! remember Jarry Yang, born in Taiwan. If you happen to use YouTube remember that two of the three founders are from Germany and Taiwan. Ebay? Pierre Omydar from France. Want me to go on? Feel like checking out the founding fathers? Do you think that Alexander Hamilton was born in the USA? Should Columbus have stayed home? Or maybe do you want to simply understand that foreigners made a great contribution to this country. Whether you like it or not.
Furthermore, "free markets" are truly free only when there is competition. Free markets and deregulated markets are two different things. As a matter of fact, deregulated markets tend, over time, to create a monopoly or an oligopoly which can keep the market captive by having pricing power. Hence, to keep the market free, you have to regulate it to prevent one or few firms to gain market power. Ideally, the regulation should just level the playing field, not favor one player over another. This is micro-economy 101.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you! I wish I had some mod points for you...
The point is that to get a green card you must be cleared with the FBI, have almost every cavity of your body manually inspected, your picture and fingerprints taken and have a full medical check-up. So, what's the point of taking picture and fingerprints again every time a green card holder crosses the border? Do you really feel safer because DHS do it?
In related news pencil and paper have been found having potential for terrorist use
I am wondering whether altering web pages by inserting ads changes the ISP status of common carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier) thereby exposing it to liability for crimes and/or infringement perpetrated by its customers. Any takers?
People have sunk objects with the purpose of protecting coasts for hundreds of years. For example see http://www.vitiaz.ru/congress/en/thesis/149.html. Also there is a big ship that was sunk in front of Venice hundreds of years ago to limit the tidal effects.
Defectivity (i.e. the "dust problem") is just one of the yield detractors. There are many more and they get worse and worse. For instance, there are litho problems, etching problems, CMP problems, not to mention gate leakage, and a bunch of other parametric issues. So, you can not just look at defectivity. Even if you did, with a smaller feature size, small particles that could be tolerated in an older generation will now cause yield loss.
PS: the distribution you are talking about is a poisson distribution
You have a very valid point: hard to say, though. Volume was so much higher that I have to believe that a lot of it is arbitrageurs. This is such an easy merger to predict. But this is only a gut feeling that I can't support with hard data.
Here is the best I can do to estimate. The stock price of YHOO and MSFT are roughly the same. Merger arbitrageurs go long on target and short on acquirer. Average volume for MSFT is 100M shares/day, Friday it was roughly 300M shares, so let's say that 3/4 of them were short sells of arbitrageurs. This leaves with 150M shares sold short. In a one to one ratio this means 150M YHOO shares, i.e. 10% of YHOO shares. So, my gut feeling tells me somewhere between 10 and 20%. That's the best I can do with no hard data.
Obviously, what you say is entirely possible. But even with a white knight defense, the acquirer better offer more than MS or it'll be a proxy fight and a gazillion lawsuits. From the point of view of the investor, it doesn't make a difference. Higher offer wins.
Having said that, there are plenty of anti-takeover defenses. From the "Nancy Reagan defense" (just say no), to staggered boards, to poison pills (Yahoo has one). As Peoplesoft teaches, there is nothing that can stop an acquirer determined to buy at whatever price.
Now, some math to predict what's gonna happen. There are roughly 1.5B shares. 25% of the shares changed hands on Friday. You can bet that most of them, say 20%,ended up on the hands of arbitrageurs. Legg Mason, a hedge fund has 8% and 11% are in the hands of another hedge fund. That makes 40% of the shares in the hands of people in search of the highest return, and screw everybody else. Most of the institutional holders are generally sympathetic to management, but they hold roughly 50% of the company (excluding the two hedge funds I mentioned before and what they sold in these few days). MS only needs another 10%. If MS are smart, they have already accumulated at least 5% (they have 10 days to report any ownership higher than 5% to SEC). Now on Jan 29 and 30 the stock volume spiked. Just the excess volume (over average) is 10% of the shares. Any guess who may have bought those shares? Watch for MS coming out next week with a 10% ownership.
So, let's say that Yang doesn't want to sell. He's got little or no stock. Filo has 5% of the Yahoo stock. The board may be loyal to Yang, but it must be very careful because the Revlon Duties have been triggered and they impose no loyalty. Once the company is in play, the CEO counts only as much as he can control the board.
So, here is what's gonna happen: if MS doesn't raise the price enough and Yahoo sells, MS (or another acquirer) and the hedge funds stay below 15% ownership to not trigger the poison pill. At the upcoming shareholders meeting (should be in May or June), a proxy fight erupts, and MS asks the poison pill to be repealed. The arbitrageurs vote yes, and somebody buys Yahoo. Most likely MS, but if somebody else has $50-60B, why not? The hedge funds don't care who wins as long as the company is sold.
They are just jacking up the price. The company will be sold. Once a company is in play, it is very hard to take it off the market.
Once the directors receive an offer, it is their duty to figure out whether their shareholders are better off with Yahoo alone or not. If they figure out that it is better selling (I am sure they did already), it is their obligation under current Delaware law to auction the company. That's exactly what they are doing. There isn't a single transaction that closes at the starting price.
If the directors decide that it is better going alone, it will end up with a Proxy fight and a lot of lawsuits (those will happen anyway)
Right now, arbitrageurs are going long on Yahoo and short on MS.
- Also, the author takes an average of 80 characters for the cost of SMS and compares them with the max number of words/characters you can send via US mail. An unfair comparison.
All in all, all fallacies skew the numbers towards the point that the author is trying to make, which is quite unethical. It is also stupid because a fair comparison would totally support his point, just with slightly less astounding numbers.I wouldn't sign it. If you want to, remember that any contract can be changed before it is signed. So, you can tell your employer "I would make changes X and Y" and they can change it. You can even strike sections you don't like with a pen before signing it. As long as the other company is ok, you are good.
Actually, I have to correct you. The update changes the IMEI code (a unique code for each phone) to a know invalid code. The code is very easy to check, so they can tell very quickly if you unlocked your iPhone or not. It sucks, but that's the way it is (at least for a while)
When you purchase an iPhone you are not signing anything (other than a credit card slip). Hence, you have not entered in a contract with AT&T, so whatever AT&T spokesperson says, it is not tenable. Furthermore, unlocking one's phone is not illegal in the US.
Here are some more details that you may want to consider: a user who doesn't know about it will not be pleased and could also be scared. I can tolerate it, my wife can't. My iPhone is heavily modded hers isn't.
Some examples on the address book:
- if you use windows (don't know about mac) and you add an entry to your address book directly on the iPhone, it is not synchronized back,so when you restore from your address book, all the entries you added are gone.
- If you associated pictures to your address book, the association is gone; same for ringtones;
All I am saying is that until Apple creates and SDK and signs application, adding apps is not for every user. And even an experienced user may find it very annoying. Configuring all the features is a major pain...
The danger here is that an iphone update could wipe out not only your changes, but also your ringtones, your address book etc. The reason is that the software update performs an integrity check. If the check fails the update reinstalls the operating system.
It happened to me, but I expected it. A "regular" user may not appreciate.
E911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E911) already tracks you when you are in the US... sorry....
Because you don't know if you will get it one day. If you get it and you are not rich, you won't be able to survive. It is a way for society to spread risk across individuals. It is(used to be?) the most efficient way to solve the problem.
Basically you have to connect the iphone to a computer, run a program called jailbreak that makes the file system readable and writable. Then you just copy files here and there on the iphone. Turn off and on and you will have an icon to the emulator on your screen. More details: you take the files in the zip and install them into the directory /Applications, you add the application to the list of applications to be shown on the screen by editing a file called DisplayOrder.plist, and finally you chmod +x the NESApp.
Yes it is checking the install for integrity... and it looks like it wipes out phones with some mods. It is not clear yet what mods trigger a complete wipe. It looks like ringtones and minor mods will survive the update. People are still testing.
I run linux at home. I didn't even let the Comcast guy touch my computers. I asked him to leave the modem and I did the installation by myself. You just adjust a couple of parameters on the modem, you call them with the serial number of the modem, they activate it and you are done.
They require windows or whatever just in case you don't know what you are doing. In that case, you run their wizard it does all for you.
I'd like to point out that what Brazil did is actually legal under TRIPS. TRIPS is the treaty that regulates Intellectual Property world-wide. The same treaty under which so many other cases are prosecuted. One of the TRIPS provision states that a number of countries can exercise compulsory patenting on pharmaceuticals for a number of years (I believe 15, but I am not sure). It was done to lure many countries into the treaty.
While this is clearly a joke, the problem is real. There are plenty of reliability effects like electromigration andNBTI that depend upon device aging. These issues wouldn't manifest as in the TFA (although it is conceivable that the clock signal could degrade too), but as overall performance degradation.
Your comments actually reinforce my argument, don't weaken it. Right?
As much as I don't like Walmart, apparently, there are plenty of people who could get better stuff and pay more at other stores, but indeed they buy the crap from China. Three explanations: it is not so crappy, it is crap with a better quality/price ratio, or Americans are stupid. Which one?
For the same token, getting an H1-B is expensive and frustrating, but companies (usually run by Americans) still go through the hassle. Why? Maybe they can't really get the quality they are looking for, or, at least, not enough of it.
Finally, next time you use Google remember Sergey Brin, born in Russia. Next time you use Yahoo! remember Jarry Yang, born in Taiwan. If you happen to use YouTube remember that two of the three founders are from Germany and Taiwan. Ebay? Pierre Omydar from France. Want me to go on? Feel like checking out the founding fathers? Do you think that Alexander Hamilton was born in the USA? Should Columbus have stayed home? Or maybe do you want to simply understand that foreigners made a great contribution to this country. Whether you like it or not.
Furthermore, "free markets" are truly free only when there is competition. Free markets and deregulated markets are two different things. As a matter of fact, deregulated markets tend, over time, to create a monopoly or an oligopoly which can keep the market captive by having pricing power. Hence, to keep the market free, you have to regulate it to prevent one or few firms to gain market power. Ideally, the regulation should just level the playing field, not favor one player over another. This is micro-economy 101.