My apologies for a repeat post, but I goofed on what I actually wanted to reply to. The links in here point to Scott (Zot!, Understanding/Reinventing Comics)McCloud's "I Can't Stop Thinking" "columns" where he gives his take on micropayments: Coin of the Realm #1 Coin of the Realm #2
It's not. Remember that the 2nd law is only probablistic. There's nothing stopping entropy from decreasing in a closed system, it's just that for unbound systems of large numbers of particles a decrease in entropy is stupdendously unlikely to happen.
In any case, the underlying definition of the entropy of a system at a given energy is Boltzmann's constant k times the natural log of the number of states the system can assume at the given energy. For the dipole system, the energy of the system is proportional to the number of anti-parallel dipoles times the strength of the imposed field, i.e. E = C*Nap*M, or Nap = E/CM. So if the system has energy E, you know how many dipoles are anti-parallel, but not which ones. If there are N total dipoles and Nap of them anti-parallel then there are Nap!/Nap!(N-Nap)! ways to arrange those Nap dipoles and hence there are that many states. If you examine the behavior of that function (or its natural log), you'll see it increases from Nap=0 to Nap=N/2 and then decreases from Nap=N/2 to Nap=N. This means that the entropy increases from as total energy E goes from 0 to (N/2)(C*M) but then decreases as E goes from (N/2)(C*M) to N(C*M).
It is possible (and not merely theoretically) for entropy to decrease as temperature increases, in which case temperature does go negative. Weirdly, negative temperatures are considered hotter than any positive temperature. Thankfully (?) this sort of thing can only happen when you have very constrained systems -- the classic example is N magnetic dipoles constrained such that any dipole can only point parallel or anti-parallel to an applied magnetic field. If they are all parallel (lowest energy state) and you apply energy, they will begin to flip over. As they flip over, the entropy of the system rises with the increasing energy, so the system's temperature is positive. But once half the dipoles have flipped and the increasing energy drives more and more of them into the anti-parallel state, the entropy starts decreasing with increased energy, and temperature goes negative.
Don't believe me?:) Pick up a statistical mechanics text and have a look...
(1) You need to read more closely and place your modifiers more accurately. That clause means "anything in the (Constitution or laws) of any state". In other words, "of any state" modifies both "Constitution" and "laws". In other words, the clause is saying that ratified treaties trump any state laws or state constitutions.
(2) I believe it is long-settled law that ratified treaties are considered to be on a part with Federal statutes -- so a ratified treaty can have the effect of repealing/amending/etc. an existing Federal law, will trump state laws/constitutions [see (1), above].
(3) And since they are on a part with Federal laws, they are subject to the constraints of the US Constitution, and any treaty provisions ruled in conflict with the US Const are null and void within the US.
Any lawyers out there? I've long been under the impression that ratified treaties are "only" considered on a part with plain old Federal statutes, and therefore any provisions of any ratified treaty that conflicts with the US constitution is null and void within the US.
If CNET's characterization of the treaty is legit, it would still be horrible if lots of countries ratify it, but at least in the US, I believe some of its worst provisions would not apply (for example, it would not and could not give the US govt the power to shut down US-based sites that critizied China).
Has anyone here actually called E*TRADE? Two of my DS friends have and both were told that the directed share allocation hasn't happened yet and that they're still taking orders/reconfirmations for directed shares folks.
It's my bet, then, that all the rejection notices that DS people got are bogus, probably because parts of E*TRADE's computer system don't distinguish between DSers and non-DSers.
Said friend also was told he had gotten into the database twice -- once as non-DS (that's what his rejection message came from) and once as DS.
Perhaps that has happened to the people here who were DSers who got reject messages.
We've wondered if re-confirming the order somehow screwed things up and made people lose their DS bits (or went in as a second, non-DS order in addition to the existing DS order).
...that they still have NOT run the directed shares allocation, they expect to later on (maybe not today, though) and are still accepting directed share conditional orders.
An interestine alternative to both the "traditional" way of doing IPOs and the Wit Capital/E*Trade way that I ran across: OpenIPO.com.
The idea is that you place a bid for the number of shares you are interested in and a price. When the bid deadline arrives, the bids are ranked in descending order by price. Starting from the top, bids are accepted until there are no more shares left. Then (and this is the key) all the people who have had their bids accepted pay the price of the lowest accepted bid. This is called a "Vickrey auction." It seems a lot fairer to me, and I hope the company gets some decent IPOs and survives.
It stands for "Initial Public Offering." It is when a corporation offers some of its shares for the general public for the first time.
What happens is that the corp gets together with an investment bank. The investment bank starts talking to other institutions, clients, other investment banks and so on in order to judge demand so that an initial price can be set.
There's an interesting tension going on. The underwriter (usually the prime underwriter will bring in sub-underwriters for assistance -- the combination is called the "syndicate") buys all the shares from the company at the agreed-upon price and in turn sells some or all of those shares to the public at the same price (actually, the underwriter extracts a commission, called the "underwriting discount" IIRC) from the company going public). So if the stock price is set too high, the syndicate will be left holding more shares than it may have wanted because demand wasn't high enough. If the price is set too low, then the company has left money on the table and the underwriter ended up with a lower commission than he could have gotten.
In practice, IPOs are usually priced intentionally low so that the stock'll pop up on the first day of trading, attracting buzz and making everyone happy.
Ok. So the price is set, the syndicate buys the stock from the company. The syndicate sells the stock to those people it has decided to sell the stock to (each underwriter has their own criteria, subject to NASD and SEC rules, for making the decision). At that point, those people own the shares and are free to start trading away!
Because it could hurt RHAT in the future. While it is true that the stock price doesn't directly affect the company once the company goes public, having a strong stock can significantly lower one's cost of capital, which is VERY important to rapidly growing companies.
When a company goes public, it actually sells its shares to the underwriting syndicate who in turn sells it to their friends and customers. Both these sets of sales happen at the IPO price.
As a co-underwriter, E*TRADE has some number of shares alloted to it, that it can sell as it pleases. E*TRADE's standing policy is to sell 50% to its customers and the other 50% to anyone else, presumable institutions.
The other underwriters can do something similar. Chances are, a lot more of their shares will go to institutions than customers.
To make a long story short, unless the members of the syndicate sell allot shares to brokers outside the syndicate, no other brokers will be able to offer a piece of the IPO.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, as even a cursory reading of the court's opinion will show.
Trying to ban people from finding "bomb-making recipes" on the internet...
Why don't you address this to the fabulously wealthy Persian Gulf Arab states, as well?
It's amazing how little they do for their brethren whilst demonizing the US and the West.
And what a wonderful incentive for creating a product with good usability that approach gives...
My apologies for a repeat post, but I goofed on what I actually wanted to reply to. The links in here point to Scott (Zot!, Understanding/Reinventing Comics)McCloud's "I Can't Stop Thinking" "columns" where he gives his take on micropayments:
Coin of the Realm #1
Coin of the Realm #2
I Can't Stop Thinking #5
and
I Can't Stop Thinking #6
Q: And how many of those appeals courts judges did Bush appoint?
A: Zero
Now how about some rational commentary instead of pointless whining.
To answer my own question, it appears the appeals court only voided the breakup order. The conclusion that MSFT violated anti-trust law stands.
t ml
http://www.washtech.com/news/software/10807-1.h
So, what exactly was thrown out? Just the guilty verdict and the breakup order? Or was the whole trial, including the Findings of Fact, voided?
It's not. Remember that the 2nd law is only probablistic. There's nothing stopping entropy from decreasing in a closed system, it's just that for unbound systems of large numbers of particles a decrease in entropy is stupdendously unlikely to happen.
In any case, the underlying definition of the entropy of a system at a given energy is Boltzmann's constant k times the natural log of the number of states the system can assume at the given energy. For the dipole system, the energy of the system is proportional to the number of anti-parallel dipoles times the strength of the imposed field, i.e. E = C*Nap*M, or Nap = E/CM. So if the system has energy E, you know how many dipoles are anti-parallel, but not which ones. If there are N total dipoles and Nap of them anti-parallel then there are Nap!/Nap!(N-Nap)! ways to arrange those Nap dipoles and hence there are that many states. If you examine the behavior of that function (or its natural log), you'll see it increases from Nap=0 to Nap=N/2 and then decreases from Nap=N/2 to Nap=N. This means that the entropy increases from as total energy E goes from 0 to (N/2)(C*M) but then decreases as E goes from (N/2)(C*M) to N(C*M).
As I said, see a statistical mechanics textbook.
Temperature is defined thermodynamically as:
1/T = dS/dE
where S=entropy and E=energy.
It is possible (and not merely theoretically) for entropy to decrease as temperature increases, in which case temperature does go negative. Weirdly, negative temperatures are considered hotter than any positive temperature. Thankfully (?) this sort of thing can only happen when you have very constrained systems -- the classic example is N magnetic dipoles constrained such that any dipole can only point parallel or anti-parallel to an applied magnetic field. If they are all parallel (lowest energy state) and you apply energy, they will begin to flip over. As they flip over, the entropy of the system rises with the increasing energy, so the system's temperature is positive. But once half the dipoles have flipped and the increasing energy drives more and more of them into the anti-parallel state, the entropy starts decreasing with increased energy, and temperature goes negative.
Don't believe me?
Grrr...all the "on a part"s should read "on a par"
(1) You need to read more closely and place your modifiers more accurately. That clause means "anything in the (Constitution or laws) of any state". In other words, "of any state" modifies both "Constitution" and "laws". In other words, the clause is saying that ratified treaties trump any state laws or state constitutions.
(2) I believe it is long-settled law that ratified treaties are considered to be on a part with Federal statutes -- so a ratified treaty can have the effect of repealing/amending/etc. an existing Federal law, will trump state laws/constitutions [see (1), above].
(3) And since they are on a part with Federal laws, they are subject to the constraints of the US Constitution, and any treaty provisions ruled in conflict with the US Const are null and void within the US.
Any lawyers out there? I've long been under the impression that ratified treaties are "only" considered on a part with plain old Federal statutes, and therefore any provisions of any ratified treaty that conflicts with the US constitution is null and void within the US.
If CNET's characterization of the treaty is legit, it would still be horrible if lots of countries ratify it, but at least in the US, I believe some of its worst provisions would not apply (for example, it would not and could not give the US govt the power to shut down US-based sites that critizied China).
Has anyone here actually called E*TRADE? Two of my DS friends have and both were told that the directed share allocation hasn't happened yet and that they're still taking orders/reconfirmations for directed shares folks.
It's my bet, then, that all the rejection notices that DS people got are bogus, probably because parts of E*TRADE's computer system don't distinguish between DSers and non-DSers.
Said friend also was told he had gotten into the database twice -- once as non-DS (that's what his rejection message came from) and once as DS.
Perhaps that has happened to the people here who were DSers who got reject messages.
We've wondered if re-confirming the order somehow screwed things up and made people lose their DS bits (or went in as a second, non-DS order in addition to the existing DS order).
...that they still have NOT run the directed shares allocation, they expect to later on (maybe not today, though) and are still accepting directed share conditional orders.
And just what do you propose the Federal Elections Commission should do about this?
:-)
Except that the underwriters don't get to keep the "extra" money. RedHat will get the $14/sh (minus the commission that RHAT pays to the syndicate).
Read the fine print associated with the $75 offer:
(1) The $75 will post after about 2 weeks.
(2) The account must stay open for 6 months in
order to keep the $75.
The idea is that you place a bid for the number of shares you are interested in and a price. When the bid deadline arrives, the bids are ranked in descending order by price. Starting from the top, bids are accepted until there are no more shares left. Then (and this is the key) all the people who have had their bids accepted pay the price of the lowest accepted bid. This is called a "Vickrey auction." It seems a lot fairer to me, and I hope the company gets some decent IPOs and survives.
It stands for "Initial Public Offering." It is when a corporation offers some of its shares for the general public for the first time.
What happens is that the corp gets together with an investment bank. The investment bank starts talking to other institutions, clients, other investment banks and so on in order to judge demand so that an initial price can be set.
There's an interesting tension going on. The underwriter (usually the prime underwriter will bring in sub-underwriters for assistance -- the combination is called the "syndicate") buys all the shares from the company at the agreed-upon price and in turn sells some or all of those shares to the public at the same price (actually, the underwriter extracts a commission, called the "underwriting discount" IIRC) from the company going public). So if the stock price is set too high, the syndicate will be left holding more shares than it may have wanted because demand wasn't high enough. If the price is set too low, then the company has left money on the table and the underwriter ended up with a lower commission than he could have gotten.
In practice, IPOs are usually priced intentionally low so that the stock'll pop up on the first day of trading, attracting buzz and making everyone happy.
Ok. So the price is set, the syndicate buys the stock from the company. The syndicate sells the stock to those people it has decided to sell the stock to (each underwriter has their own criteria, subject to NASD and SEC rules, for making the decision). At that point, those people own the shares and are free to start trading away!
Because it could hurt RHAT in the future. While it is true that the stock price doesn't directly affect the company once the company goes public, having a strong stock can significantly lower one's cost of capital, which is VERY important to rapidly growing companies.
Absolutely.
When a company goes public, it actually sells its shares to the underwriting syndicate who in turn sells it to their friends and customers. Both these sets of sales happen at the IPO price.
As a co-underwriter, E*TRADE has some number of shares alloted to it, that it can sell as it pleases. E*TRADE's standing policy is to sell 50% to its customers and the other 50% to anyone else, presumable institutions.
The other underwriters can do something similar. Chances are, a lot more of their shares will go to institutions than customers.
To make a long story short, unless the members of the syndicate sell allot shares to brokers outside the syndicate, no other brokers will be able to offer a piece of the IPO.