no one seems to know if "148 days" is 90% or 9% of the way thru a random search of solution space. The extremes are unlikely in proportion, like a 9% search success is probably only going to happen 1 in 11 trials.
It doesn't matter.
It only matters if they were 0.0001% (that's not actually enough zeros; I'm being figurative) of the way through the keyspace. If they were as high as 1% and just happened to get lucky, that's enough to show that it doesn't take ludicrous amounts of time, and "ludicrous amounts of time" is where the bar currently is and what we all want from any serious crypto. Hiding your love letters from your little sister should require more resources to crack than the NSA ever hopes to have (not because it makes sense, but because you can).
Both sides are lying backstabbing scum bags, it really doesn't matter who you vote for at this point.
Gary Johnson might be thought of that way by Republicans, except he never actually lied to them. The stabs are right in the Republicans' chests. Their eyes were open and they had blades in their own hands. You might disagree with him, but he is not a scumbag.
Unfortunately, the stabs are also less than a millimeter deep and I don't think they even damaged the threading of their clothing.. unless you vote for him. Push in the blade. Enough people doing that, causes it to matter who you vote for.
Disable pacemakers? Shut down a hospital's equipment? These things will kill people too.
But that's not what this particular software does. If someone wants to repurpose Stuxnet or Flame to target pacemakers, they're going to have to do the work to make it so.
OTOH if you make bullets intended to kill only bad guys and someone else decides to repurpose them for killing cute puppies and children, the bullets are just fine as-is, and ready to use.
Either you keep the bug secret, leaving your own people vulnerable, in the hopes that you can hit the other guy before he discovers the problem, or you protect everyone from that vulnerability by getting it fixed.
That's what public key cryptography is for. The bug doesn't have to be a secret if it's designed to only be triggered by an attack signed by the right secret key.
[paranoid]And Windows 8 certification means that mass market hardware is required come with the keyring for checking that signature. They're fixing the very problem you're complaining about.
Security and insecurity are subjective. Not subjective in the sense of being a fuzzy judgement call, but subjective in the sense of "secure for whom from whom?" Windows 8 will be "secure," in it's own very special way.[/paranoid]
I guess the idea is that if there are patents, then Friends of Privacy is delayed for 20 years. Sorry, Vernor, but it'll happen some day. That's why you write about the future, because patents mean the next 20 years always has to suck.
The founders were clever to put that into the constitution:
Congreff shall have the power.. to retard the Progress of Science and delay the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to patent trolls the exclusive Right to prevent the proliferation of technology
But will consumers care whether their handset runs on an Intel chip? Bell conceded that aside from the tech-savvy, most people probably don't know which chip is inside their phone. It's likely, given the lack of advertising on this, that most probably don't care â" making Intel's job even harder."
This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that make Intel's job easier, not harder?
If people are buying on performance-per-Watt rather than brand names (which I don't actually believe), then I'd think that would give the "outsider" (who also happens to have 22nm fabs with 14nm and 10nm coming) an advantage.
After listening to the oral argument, what do you think?
Same as when someone posts a link to a video. I don't think anything yet, because non-text media requires a shitload more time and patience. . 60 seconds of audio (optionally with video, don't matter) = 6 seconds of text.
This is supposed to be an argument, not art. Please don't tell me the whole point is that the guy has a funny voice or something like that.
But the entire output of the economy is 0.35X and we have 0.65X in savings to spend. If we spend it, it causes the value of the currency to crash dramatically.
Eek! Crash?! That's interesting.
If we predict it'll do that, then it's almost as though we should actually expect it to not always keep deflating, since we all know that some day, someone might spend some of it, and then our own stockpiles will lose value. As a rational selfish bastard I might actually conclude that it's smarter for me to spend it, than save it forever. I might even reach that conclusion long before we get to the 10 year ratios that you mentioned. And since I might do it, then you know I might do it, so you're spending money too.
I think everybody's constantly doing this routinely, from year 1. People will save when they need to save, rather than whenever they think they might profit from speculating on the value of the currency.
What this tells me is that we can hypothesize about currency systems which have a limited supply (which we might naively expect to eternally deflate), but if we hypothesize about a currency system where we have declared that it will deflate, it leads to us contradicting our hypothesis.
Deflationary currencies are extremely bad
They also might not be capable of existing, by your porjections. Are we sure gold and bitcoins are really deflationary currencies? If they can "crash" then they should be immune to deflation.
Question remains: how comes those people are so dumb? Being at de-facto cyberwar with a country, and still use closed source program originating from it?
That's just another example of how Apple's opportunities in this situation are on the fringes. Sure, some people will forget the computer they just bought and go buy yet another one. But don't tell me that's not a selection disadvantage for the one OS maker whose OS product requires the expensive dongle. Not an automatically-losing disadvantage but a clear disadvantage nonetheless.
Apple opposes you buying and using their OS if your computer isn't a Mac.
If you buy a computer and it has Windows 8 preloaded and you hate it, Mac OS may be available to you as a pirate, but Apple's position is that your computer is a doorstop, not a ludicrously overpowered computer which can be salvaged by installing decent software. They aren't going to try to directly use that machine to increase their OS market share.
They don't hope to get you as a customer until n years later when that machine is finally obsolete (and I think n is getting to be a pretty big number), and they're counting on you remembering how unhappy you were with your previous purchase being non-Apple hardware.
Except that when that day comes, you may have been running Mint for n years and probably don't actually have negative feelings about your hardware purchase. Turns out, the non-Apple hardware was fucking awesome (probably; most of today's shittiest garbage computers are just incredible, or at least in my experience). It's the preload you have bad feelings about.
There are a few angles; maybe you will keep Windows on the machine despite your unhappiness, so the bitterness will last longer. Maybe your otherwise useful machine has something weird for which drivers are hard to get or don't work well (e.g. realtek wifi), so you can't ever upgrade the OS. Maybe you'll recommend Macs to your friends and family, so someone else might get a Mac due to your purchase of a Windows-preloaded box.
There are opportunities for Apple, but most of them seem pretty fringe.
Damn scientists, perverting military tech for their inhumanly-focused aims.
How would you feel, if you were a contractor who worked on one of these satellites and who always assumed it would be used for some kind of warlike purpose -- maybe even to locate someone or something which needs to be blown up -- only to discover your work was going to be used for peaceful purposes?
I assume you can back up with facts that there every obese person in the US does not have health insurance? Therefore the govt must take care of them?
I don't need to check every obese person for health insurance; I already know the ER is required to treat them whether they have insurance or not. The taxpayers' responsibility for patients is already established, independently of insurance. Even if we study all obese persons carefully and find out that 100% of them are insured, we still know for sure that we have created a policy where ERs are required to treat them regardless of whatever information the ER may have.
Repeal that requirement and other taxpayer health funding, so that as a matter of policy, the public will not have this responsibility forced upon them, and I will very strongly favor revoking any powers the public has been given which conflict with individual liberty.
(Be careful, though. The requirement that ERs treat people may have actually been a good idea whose benefits outweigh my beverage convenience. OTOH, do the aforementioned research to determine that all obese persons are insured (presumably this insurance will also be funded privately), and you'll have a credible argument that all persons are probably insured, and that would indeed be a powerful argument that ERs should no longer be required to treat uninsured people (a situation that would never come up anyway), Medicare can be repealed, and so on. I harbor doubts that our country has reached the level of health insurance which you suggest, but maybe you know something that I don't.)
I don't get your point about whether or not you count as "obese" or the story about the unusually obese person. I think you're trying to say if you drink large sodas that's probably not particularly risky to other taxpayers or insurance pool members. Please forgive me if I misinterpreted, but that's how I'll take it. To that, I say: whatever. You're quibbling over the details of this particular soda policy's effectiveness or wisdom. That's fine to debate, but relatively uninteresting to me from a civics perspective. That's like talking about the particular price of some whore during a discussion about criminalization or legalization.
I am taking the side that whatever the details of diet regulations happen to be, it is the public's right to make these decisions (i.e. New Yorks' citizens' representatives have the right to pass this law) and impose their beliefs upon individuals at the expense of freedom, because this otherwise-would-be-radical thing has been bought in exchange for individuals imposing a responsibility upon the public.
If that responsibility does not exist, then fine, we can also have the freedom we want. But let's not ask for the freedom and them make someone else be responsible. That offends me as a libertarian even more than socialism itself would. At least socialism still tries to balance public powers and responsibilities (it just happens to makes the amounts of each of those things, larger than I think is smart). It is not magnitude, but imbalance (either taking my freedom away without giving me something for it, or allowing someone else a freedom and making me pay more than them, for its consequences) which is a particularly intolerable corruption and tyranny, and I hope it offends everyone no matter where they are on the right/left spectrum. Communists and anarchists, join me on this, at least.
Quid Pro Quo is in effect, some sort of deal has been struck, so no basic social contract has been violated. Issues of liberty vs authoritarianism have been rendered moot. But some people aren't accepting this, so we need to talk about that before we move on to the mundane and boring details of soda, science, whether or not you or I happen to be obese, and so on.
Therefore, "health micromanagement" and government death panels are not an inevitable, unavoidable conclusion of "Nanny Government."
But they're a desirable and logical conclusion. You UKers are doing it wrong (by US standards), by denying your taxpayers a necessary power. It's unfair and unjust that you're charging your taxpayers for something without allowing them representative control for how it is spent or imposing conditions for its spending.
And if you're ok with that, fine, but in US that injustice would be met with widespread (not R-D partisan) citizen resentment. Our two countries feel differently about this matter, and we had a very similar discussion about it in the 1770s.
Reread the comment you replied to; he actually had an excellent point.
Who is the government to tell people that they're being irresponsible? And, if they are but aren't harming anyone else, so what?
Who are these people to demand a safety net? Why do the LIE by saying they're harming no one else, while reaching into everyone else's wallet to pay for their safety net in order to subsidize their own decisions at public expense?
All this really does is prove that politicians are stupider than people who drink ten liters of soda in a day.
No, it proves that people who drink ten liters of soda in a day and then go crying to Nanny Government if the Emergency Room doctor turns them away unless they pay in advance, are hypocrits.
Health micromanagement is not the beginning of Nanny Government; it is the logical conclusion of Nanny Government. You can't say the public is responsible for individual people's health, and then not also give the public power to use force to make individuals be healthy despite their wishes.
When you vote for government responsibility, you are voting for government power. That power will come at the expense of people's liberty. It has to. I'm not saying this is good or evil (though I certainly have an opinion), but it is the reality.
By all accounts Kim seems to be something of a scumbag
By all accounts prior to the raid he seemed like a scumbag.
Once the raid happened and evidence was gathered, both governments' actions since then have suggested that they think he is innocent, or else they wouldn't be doing everything they can do to keep a trial from happening. The governments are shocked and disappointed by evidence of lack-of-crimes they gathered. If they gathered evidence he was actually guilty of what they previously said he had done, they wouldn't have repeatedly tripped over themselves again and again to guarantee the guy is going to walk.
By current accounts, he's probably not a scumbag. To everyone's surprise.
I'm not talking about innocent-until-proven-guilty principles or anything like that; I'm talking about making inferences about secret evidence by looking at the behavior of the people who have that evidence.
Here is the problem: the people who built him up to be a hero cannot believe that he might also be a rapist.
I can totally understand that. It makes sense that a lot of people (and I'm certainly not immune) would run into a reasoning flaw caused by this.
Nevertheless, the "rape" charge really does look like either bullshit or a bizarre Swedish technicality, so it's kind of infuriating. Even if he really were an actual rapist, the allegations against him sound nothing like what most people would think of as rape. In fact I don't think we should use that word (since it seems so dishonestly inaccurate) but rather "regressively-technical Swedish sex crime," kind of like committing the crime of "sodomy" in Texas.
Swedish citizens, shame on you for not repealing this silly law. YOU ARE ALL TEXANS TO ME.
The irony is because the person doing the stealing is supposedly religious (otherwise why would you bother stealing a Bible?)
Maybe they want to become religious, by finally learning the great truth. (Wouldn't you steal a Necronomicon? I would.) Imagine learning all of Moses' and Jesus' spells, going around parting seas to lay transoceanic cables cheaper, resurrecting to collect from dead deadbeats, summoning The Beast at just the right moment during a Maiden concert. I am so getting one of those bibles some day, even if I have to steal it.
Regardless of the soundness of this particular investment, the SEC has rules, and the rules are alleged to have been violated. Facebook's P/E ratio is irrelevant. The in-your-face obvious idea that an already large and established software company doesn't really need a huge cash infusion in order to suddenly become more profitable (what, Facebook had a great idea for making money but without more cash they couldn't yet afford a programmer to implement that idea?), is irrelevant.
This is about a law. If you don't like the law, repeal it. But please, don't have a law and then not enforce it. That kind of thing screws everyone even worse than dodgy IPOs.
Do you sue the casino and Nevada Gaming Commission when you don't ply well at the slots because the adjust the payouts since the last months payout percentages were posted?
The stock market is a lot like gambling, but it's not exactly the same thing, and especially when you get to how it's regulated, it's totally different, where the only thing that have in common is that a lot of people say it's corrupt.
If there were a law that said the posted payouts must be up-to-date or that VIPs aren't allowed to see more up-to-date payout information than non-VIPs, then yeah, maybe someone would sue casinos over payout postings. Why wouldn't they? You might say it would be a stupid law, but nevertheless if it were on the books then I would expect people to exploit it.
The irony of someone stealing a bible is not lost on me, either.
The irony is lost on me.
If I were designing a religion, I would consider it successful to have people be willing to steal (which comes with risk of punishment), or otherwise make sacrifices out of desire for my literature. That should be a goal of all good religions. If you look at it that way, how could people stealing it even be slightly ironic? That's part of the end state that a religion should work for: people out of their mind with devotion that they will do anything.
You lose a little on initial sales, but bibles should be thought of as ads. (Yes, I realize their actual uses are more complex.) That isn't to say you wouldn't prefer people pay for them, but geez, don't sweat it if people steal. It's ok for them to be loss-leaders. It's after you get people, that you make real money, either directly (e.g. through tithes or courses) or indirectly (e.g. tell followers which politicians to vote for, start holy wars after you buy into weapon contracts, whatever).
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter.
It only matters if they were 0.0001% (that's not actually enough zeros; I'm being figurative) of the way through the keyspace. If they were as high as 1% and just happened to get lucky, that's enough to show that it doesn't take ludicrous amounts of time, and "ludicrous amounts of time" is where the bar currently is and what we all want from any serious crypto. Hiding your love letters from your little sister should require more resources to crack than the NSA ever hopes to have (not because it makes sense, but because you can).
Gary Johnson might be thought of that way by Republicans, except he never actually lied to them. The stabs are right in the Republicans' chests. Their eyes were open and they had blades in their own hands. You might disagree with him, but he is not a scumbag.
Unfortunately, the stabs are also less than a millimeter deep and I don't think they even damaged the threading of their clothing .. unless you vote for him. Push in the blade. Enough people doing that, causes it to matter who you vote for.
But that's not what this particular software does. If someone wants to repurpose Stuxnet or Flame to target pacemakers, they're going to have to do the work to make it so.
OTOH if you make bullets intended to kill only bad guys and someone else decides to repurpose them for killing cute puppies and children, the bullets are just fine as-is, and ready to use.
That's what public key cryptography is for. The bug doesn't have to be a secret if it's designed to only be triggered by an attack signed by the right secret key.
[paranoid]And Windows 8 certification means that mass market hardware is required come with the keyring for checking that signature. They're fixing the very problem you're complaining about.
Security and insecurity are subjective. Not subjective in the sense of being a fuzzy judgement call, but subjective in the sense of "secure for whom from whom?" Windows 8 will be "secure," in it's own very special way.[/paranoid]
I guess the idea is that if there are patents, then Friends of Privacy is delayed for 20 years. Sorry, Vernor, but it'll happen some day. That's why you write about the future, because patents mean the next 20 years always has to suck.
The founders were clever to put that into the constitution:
What if my login screen uses a picture of a vampire?
This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that make Intel's job easier, not harder?
If people are buying on performance-per-Watt rather than brand names (which I don't actually believe), then I'd think that would give the "outsider" (who also happens to have 22nm fabs with 14nm and 10nm coming) an advantage.
Sounds like you're talking about Python, using Jython, IronPython, or CPython.
Same as when someone posts a link to a video. I don't think anything yet, because non-text media requires a shitload more time and patience. . 60 seconds of audio (optionally with video, don't matter) = 6 seconds of text.
This is supposed to be an argument, not art. Please don't tell me the whole point is that the guy has a funny voice or something like that.
Eek! Crash?! That's interesting.
If we predict it'll do that, then it's almost as though we should actually expect it to not always keep deflating, since we all know that some day, someone might spend some of it, and then our own stockpiles will lose value. As a rational selfish bastard I might actually conclude that it's smarter for me to spend it, than save it forever. I might even reach that conclusion long before we get to the 10 year ratios that you mentioned. And since I might do it, then you know I might do it, so you're spending money too.
I think everybody's constantly doing this routinely, from year 1. People will save when they need to save, rather than whenever they think they might profit from speculating on the value of the currency.
What this tells me is that we can hypothesize about currency systems which have a limited supply (which we might naively expect to eternally deflate), but if we hypothesize about a currency system where we have declared that it will deflate, it leads to us contradicting our hypothesis.
They also might not be capable of existing, by your porjections. Are we sure gold and bitcoins are really deflationary currencies? If they can "crash" then they should be immune to deflation.
Even Ivan took shortcuts. Read about the Savatage of the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. (D'oh, stupid auto-complete!)
That's just another example of how Apple's opportunities in this situation are on the fringes. Sure, some people will forget the computer they just bought and go buy yet another one. But don't tell me that's not a selection disadvantage for the one OS maker whose OS product requires the expensive dongle. Not an automatically-losing disadvantage but a clear disadvantage nonetheless.
Apple opposes you buying and using their OS if your computer isn't a Mac.
If you buy a computer and it has Windows 8 preloaded and you hate it, Mac OS may be available to you as a pirate, but Apple's position is that your computer is a doorstop, not a ludicrously overpowered computer which can be salvaged by installing decent software. They aren't going to try to directly use that machine to increase their OS market share.
They don't hope to get you as a customer until n years later when that machine is finally obsolete (and I think n is getting to be a pretty big number), and they're counting on you remembering how unhappy you were with your previous purchase being non-Apple hardware.
Except that when that day comes, you may have been running Mint for n years and probably don't actually have negative feelings about your hardware purchase. Turns out, the non-Apple hardware was fucking awesome (probably; most of today's shittiest garbage computers are just incredible, or at least in my experience). It's the preload you have bad feelings about.
There are a few angles; maybe you will keep Windows on the machine despite your unhappiness, so the bitterness will last longer. Maybe your otherwise useful machine has something weird for which drivers are hard to get or don't work well (e.g. realtek wifi), so you can't ever upgrade the OS. Maybe you'll recommend Macs to your friends and family, so someone else might get a Mac due to your purchase of a Windows-preloaded box.
There are opportunities for Apple, but most of them seem pretty fringe.
In South Korea, only old people know about science.
Damn scientists, perverting military tech for their inhumanly-focused aims.
How would you feel, if you were a contractor who worked on one of these satellites and who always assumed it would be used for some kind of warlike purpose -- maybe even to locate someone or something which needs to be blown up -- only to discover your work was going to be used for peaceful purposes?
I don't need to check every obese person for health insurance; I already know the ER is required to treat them whether they have insurance or not. The taxpayers' responsibility for patients is already established, independently of insurance. Even if we study all obese persons carefully and find out that 100% of them are insured, we still know for sure that we have created a policy where ERs are required to treat them regardless of whatever information the ER may have.
Repeal that requirement and other taxpayer health funding, so that as a matter of policy, the public will not have this responsibility forced upon them, and I will very strongly favor revoking any powers the public has been given which conflict with individual liberty.
(Be careful, though. The requirement that ERs treat people may have actually been a good idea whose benefits outweigh my beverage convenience. OTOH, do the aforementioned research to determine that all obese persons are insured (presumably this insurance will also be funded privately), and you'll have a credible argument that all persons are probably insured, and that would indeed be a powerful argument that ERs should no longer be required to treat uninsured people (a situation that would never come up anyway), Medicare can be repealed, and so on. I harbor doubts that our country has reached the level of health insurance which you suggest, but maybe you know something that I don't.)
I don't get your point about whether or not you count as "obese" or the story about the unusually obese person. I think you're trying to say if you drink large sodas that's probably not particularly risky to other taxpayers or insurance pool members. Please forgive me if I misinterpreted, but that's how I'll take it. To that, I say: whatever. You're quibbling over the details of this particular soda policy's effectiveness or wisdom. That's fine to debate, but relatively uninteresting to me from a civics perspective. That's like talking about the particular price of some whore during a discussion about criminalization or legalization.
I am taking the side that whatever the details of diet regulations happen to be, it is the public's right to make these decisions (i.e. New Yorks' citizens' representatives have the right to pass this law) and impose their beliefs upon individuals at the expense of freedom, because this otherwise-would-be-radical thing has been bought in exchange for individuals imposing a responsibility upon the public.
If that responsibility does not exist, then fine, we can also have the freedom we want. But let's not ask for the freedom and them make someone else be responsible. That offends me as a libertarian even more than socialism itself would. At least socialism still tries to balance public powers and responsibilities (it just happens to makes the amounts of each of those things, larger than I think is smart). It is not magnitude, but imbalance (either taking my freedom away without giving me something for it, or allowing someone else a freedom and making me pay more than them, for its consequences) which is a particularly intolerable corruption and tyranny, and I hope it offends everyone no matter where they are on the right/left spectrum. Communists and anarchists, join me on this, at least.
Quid Pro Quo is in effect, some sort of deal has been struck, so no basic social contract has been violated. Issues of liberty vs authoritarianism have been rendered moot. But some people aren't accepting this, so we need to talk about that before we move on to the mundane and boring details of soda, science, whether or not you or I happen to be obese, and so on.
But they're a desirable and logical conclusion. You UKers are doing it wrong (by US standards), by denying your taxpayers a necessary power. It's unfair and unjust that you're charging your taxpayers for something without allowing them representative control for how it is spent or imposing conditions for its spending.
And if you're ok with that, fine, but in US that injustice would be met with widespread (not R-D partisan) citizen resentment. Our two countries feel differently about this matter, and we had a very similar discussion about it in the 1770s.
Who are these people to demand a safety net? Why do the LIE by saying they're harming no one else, while reaching into everyone else's wallet to pay for their safety net in order to subsidize their own decisions at public expense?
No, it proves that people who drink ten liters of soda in a day and then go crying to Nanny Government if the Emergency Room doctor turns them away unless they pay in advance, are hypocrits.
Health micromanagement is not the beginning of Nanny Government; it is the logical conclusion of Nanny Government. You can't say the public is responsible for individual people's health, and then not also give the public power to use force to make individuals be healthy despite their wishes.
When you vote for government responsibility, you are voting for government power. That power will come at the expense of people's liberty. It has to. I'm not saying this is good or evil (though I certainly have an opinion), but it is the reality.
TL;DNR but I can tell you, this would never happen in an Android market.
By all accounts prior to the raid he seemed like a scumbag.
Once the raid happened and evidence was gathered, both governments' actions since then have suggested that they think he is innocent, or else they wouldn't be doing everything they can do to keep a trial from happening. The governments are shocked and disappointed by evidence of lack-of-crimes they gathered. If they gathered evidence he was actually guilty of what they previously said he had done, they wouldn't have repeatedly tripped over themselves again and again to guarantee the guy is going to walk.
By current accounts, he's probably not a scumbag. To everyone's surprise.
I'm not talking about innocent-until-proven-guilty principles or anything like that; I'm talking about making inferences about secret evidence by looking at the behavior of the people who have that evidence.
I can totally understand that. It makes sense that a lot of people (and I'm certainly not immune) would run into a reasoning flaw caused by this.
Nevertheless, the "rape" charge really does look like either bullshit or a bizarre Swedish technicality, so it's kind of infuriating. Even if he really were an actual rapist, the allegations against him sound nothing like what most people would think of as rape. In fact I don't think we should use that word (since it seems so dishonestly inaccurate) but rather "regressively-technical Swedish sex crime," kind of like committing the crime of "sodomy" in Texas.
Swedish citizens, shame on you for not repealing this silly law. YOU ARE ALL TEXANS TO ME.
Maybe they want to become religious, by finally learning the great truth. (Wouldn't you steal a Necronomicon? I would.) Imagine learning all of Moses' and Jesus' spells, going around parting seas to lay transoceanic cables cheaper, resurrecting to collect from dead deadbeats, summoning The Beast at just the right moment during a Maiden concert. I am so getting one of those bibles some day, even if I have to steal it.
Regardless of the soundness of this particular investment, the SEC has rules, and the rules are alleged to have been violated. Facebook's P/E ratio is irrelevant. The in-your-face obvious idea that an already large and established software company doesn't really need a huge cash infusion in order to suddenly become more profitable (what, Facebook had a great idea for making money but without more cash they couldn't yet afford a programmer to implement that idea?), is irrelevant.
This is about a law. If you don't like the law, repeal it. But please, don't have a law and then not enforce it. That kind of thing screws everyone even worse than dodgy IPOs.
The stock market is a lot like gambling, but it's not exactly the same thing, and especially when you get to how it's regulated, it's totally different, where the only thing that have in common is that a lot of people say it's corrupt.
If there were a law that said the posted payouts must be up-to-date or that VIPs aren't allowed to see more up-to-date payout information than non-VIPs, then yeah, maybe someone would sue casinos over payout postings. Why wouldn't they? You might say it would be a stupid law, but nevertheless if it were on the books then I would expect people to exploit it.
Seizing the means of production means The People should publically and collectively own .. the contract to exploit the foreign proletariat.
The irony is lost on me.
If I were designing a religion, I would consider it successful to have people be willing to steal (which comes with risk of punishment), or otherwise make sacrifices out of desire for my literature. That should be a goal of all good religions. If you look at it that way, how could people stealing it even be slightly ironic? That's part of the end state that a religion should work for: people out of their mind with devotion that they will do anything.
You lose a little on initial sales, but bibles should be thought of as ads. (Yes, I realize their actual uses are more complex.) That isn't to say you wouldn't prefer people pay for them, but geez, don't sweat it if people steal. It's ok for them to be loss-leaders. It's after you get people, that you make real money, either directly (e.g. through tithes or courses) or indirectly (e.g. tell followers which politicians to vote for, start holy wars after you buy into weapon contracts, whatever).