"In theory the stock buyback would do nothing to the value of shares. The remaining shares would own a bigger part of the company, but this company is ten billion dollars less valuable. In an efficient market, this would offset"
The stock buyback isn't very big, and will probably just keep the exercise of restricted stock grants (or options, whichever) from diluting the stock much.
"Shouldn't a crime require intent? If not, people should be charged with theft whenever they move a chair at a restaurant."
If you move a chair at a restaurant, it remains in the ultimate control and possession of the restaurant, because it's still on the premises. If you "borrow" a restaurant's chair, and take it to the business next door, intending to return it at some point, but without permission, you have stolen the chair.
" In this particular case, there was no intent that the paparazzi would lose their phone"
No, that was entirely the intent - to deprive the person of their phone. Not to resell the item, just to put it out of the reach of the owner.
" but it was loads better than Crossroads of Twilight."
Heh, imagine if Jordan had written the Twilight series.
When he died, the twihards would have drowned out the cries of Alderaan.
There's probably an assumption that if you're willing to take less, there must be something 'wrong' with you.
It's like people in HR/hiring don't live in the real world.
Christoforo had an Avenger for sale on his ebay site, which made me wonder if he was diverting (i.e., stealing) them and selling them himself, while the rightful purchasers get stiffed.
"Which of course makes it difficult for a recent political science graduate who doesn't read the language to find it so they will just make things up."
Or maybe they have contacts in the region with whom they communicate directly.
You're showing even more ignorance than you are accusing Stratfor of having.
"Your humanitarian project analogy may have been more meaningful before Google existed. "
The information needed probably isn't *on* Google, because it isn't on any webpages, because in the example it's freaking Myanmar. It'd be transmitted by phone or text, not news websites.
"But who, that can actually help Bradley Manning gives a fuck about Stratfor?"
There probably *are* people at the Pentagon who are customers of Stratfor, who could help Manning. Maybe they're civilians who started subscribing before coming to the Pentagon. Maybe it's someone with access to government intel who considers it a useful additional news source like their Washington Post subscription.
But as far as helping Manning... I can't see this being any more helpful than dropping a bag of flaming poop on the Secretary of Defense's front porch.
"Perhaps they are just an intelligence arm for corps that are trying to figure out new ways to screw indigenous people out of their natural resources."
Yeah, I'm sure that's why Doctors Without Borders is a customer. They're all about screwing indigenous people out of their natural resources.
"The very idea that the same person can be a world class expert on tobacco, nuclear power, coal chemistry, global warming, social security and health insurance should ring alarm bells in the head of everyone with the minimum standard of education."
What makes you think there's only one person involved?
If I run a humanitarian project operating on the border between Thailand and Myanmar, I need current information. I don't have time to wait for "books or papers by experts". I need to know about the recent Burmese military activity likely to send a stream of new refugees in my direction. Maybe that's in the papers, maybe not, so it'd be useful to have an additional source of information like Stratfor.
Simply put, you don't seem to understand what sort of service an outfit like Stratfor provides.
"What they serve is not justice. It is retaliation. And that's mob rule."
It's not retaliation if there's nothing being retaliated against.
Apparently one of the companies mentioned in the release is Doctors without Borders. I suppose a charity that provides medical care in war-torn regions and disaster areas finds it useful to have access to information and analysis of political and military situations in the regions where they are active.
What, exactly, is Stratfor supposed to have done that merits retaliation, if their service is useful to a group that does heroic work for people in the worst possible situations?
"There are career paths I personally didn't take because I realized the particular industry was corrupt to its core and I wanted no part in that. An honest living that does not make the world a worse place is an integral part of a clear conscience"
Since when does the dissemination of information come under such categories?
Do you object to libraries? What are you doing on the internet? Isn't it objectionable to you?
"There is no innocent employee of evil organizations. If you chose to act in support of such an organization, then you deserve what you get."
And if some nut job decides that posting anonymously on a forum is "evil"?
Stratfor isn't the kind of intelligence that involves eavesdropping and wiretaps. There's also "open source" intelligence, which is pretty much just anything that is published or broadcast in or about a country of interest. I think Stratfor deals with that, and also likely has direct contacts and sources who can provide information, like any journalistic operation.
Stratfor is an information company. They provide information. Remember the huge, violent protests in Bangkok a while back? If hard drive companies, or companies reliant on hard drives, wanted to know the possible repercussions of those protests, they would probably turn to a company like Stratfor, Jane's, or the Economist, for analysis by experts. "Would the current government fall? Would the military take over again? How likely is it that our factories and supply lines would be effected?"
That's all Stratfor does. They provide information and analysis. What their clients *do* with that information is the clients' responsibility.
Anonymous is basically trying to silence an information source.
It's not really a "think tank" in the sense of AEI or Heritage, which exist mostly to push a political agenda. It's more like Jane's (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx) or the Economist magazine's "Economist Intelligence Unit".
You know the companies that do market studies of storage makers, or mobile operating systems? Gartner and whatnot?
Stratfor, Jane's, etc, serve a similar purpose in the area of countries and regions, instead of product areas. Companies don't want to spend a bunch of money to hire staffers whose job is keeping track of what's going on in countries around the world. Apple doesn't want to have someone working to keep track of what may happen in Brazil or Turkey or Thailand when there is a change of government, or civil unrest. So they turn to companies that specialize in that sort of research and analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
"In theory the stock buyback would do nothing to the value of shares. The remaining shares would own a bigger part of the company, but this company is ten billion dollars less valuable. In an efficient market, this would offset" The stock buyback isn't very big, and will probably just keep the exercise of restricted stock grants (or options, whichever) from diluting the stock much.
"Shouldn't a crime require intent? If not, people should be charged with theft whenever they move a chair at a restaurant." If you move a chair at a restaurant, it remains in the ultimate control and possession of the restaurant, because it's still on the premises. If you "borrow" a restaurant's chair, and take it to the business next door, intending to return it at some point, but without permission, you have stolen the chair.
" In this particular case, there was no intent that the paparazzi would lose their phone" No, that was entirely the intent - to deprive the person of their phone. Not to resell the item, just to put it out of the reach of the owner.
Yeah, but it blows past the weight limit and baggage size limits when you try to fly somewhere with it.
" but it was loads better than Crossroads of Twilight." Heh, imagine if Jordan had written the Twilight series. When he died, the twihards would have drowned out the cries of Alderaan.
There's probably an assumption that if you're willing to take less, there must be something 'wrong' with you. It's like people in HR/hiring don't live in the real world.
Christoforo had an Avenger for sale on his ebay site, which made me wonder if he was diverting (i.e., stealing) them and selling them himself, while the rightful purchasers get stiffed.
"Which of course makes it difficult for a recent political science graduate who doesn't read the language to find it so they will just make things up."
Or maybe they have contacts in the region with whom they communicate directly.
You're showing even more ignorance than you are accusing Stratfor of having.
"These places pretend to sell "experts" on anything you want at the moment"
And you know this based on?
Have you ever even seen Stratfor's work product?
You're talking nonsense.
"Your humanitarian project analogy may have been more meaningful before Google existed. " The information needed probably isn't *on* Google, because it isn't on any webpages, because in the example it's freaking Myanmar. It'd be transmitted by phone or text, not news websites.
So does a newspaper, a computer vendor, or a power company. So what?
"at least they are not wasting time attacking international charities"
One of the Stratfor customers in the released info was Doctors Without Borders, an international charity.
"In Anonymous I see a bunch of greedy, spoiled, whining kids."
You forgot "ignorant".
"But who, that can actually help Bradley Manning gives a fuck about Stratfor?"
There probably *are* people at the Pentagon who are customers of Stratfor, who could help Manning. Maybe they're civilians who started subscribing before coming to the Pentagon. Maybe it's someone with access to government intel who considers it a useful additional news source like their Washington Post subscription.
But as far as helping Manning... I can't see this being any more helpful than dropping a bag of flaming poop on the Secretary of Defense's front porch.
"Perhaps they are just an intelligence arm for corps that are trying to figure out new ways to screw indigenous people out of their natural resources."
Yeah, I'm sure that's why Doctors Without Borders is a customer. They're all about screwing indigenous people out of their natural resources.
"The very idea that the same person can be a world class expert on tobacco, nuclear power, coal chemistry, global warming, social security and health insurance should ring alarm bells in the head of everyone with the minimum standard of education."
What makes you think there's only one person involved?
If I run a humanitarian project operating on the border between Thailand and Myanmar, I need current information. I don't have time to wait for "books or papers by experts". I need to know about the recent Burmese military activity likely to send a stream of new refugees in my direction. Maybe that's in the papers, maybe not, so it'd be useful to have an additional source of information like Stratfor.
Simply put, you don't seem to understand what sort of service an outfit like Stratfor provides.
Er, no. If there's anything we know about trolls and bullies, it's that they often don't give a shit about whether the victims deserve it.
"What they serve is not justice. It is retaliation. And that's mob rule."
It's not retaliation if there's nothing being retaliated against.
Apparently one of the companies mentioned in the release is Doctors without Borders. I suppose a charity that provides medical care in war-torn regions and disaster areas finds it useful to have access to information and analysis of political and military situations in the regions where they are active.
What, exactly, is Stratfor supposed to have done that merits retaliation, if their service is useful to a group that does heroic work for people in the worst possible situations?
"There are career paths I personally didn't take because I realized the particular industry was corrupt to its core and I wanted no part in that. An honest living that does not make the world a worse place is an integral part of a clear conscience"
Since when does the dissemination of information come under such categories?
Do you object to libraries? What are you doing on the internet? Isn't it objectionable to you?
"There is no innocent employee of evil organizations. If you chose to act in support of such an organization, then you deserve what you get." And if some nut job decides that posting anonymously on a forum is "evil"?
"And I still wonder what that Stratfor company is and does, for whom, and why they are considered evil by some."
You have an absurdly low standard of evidence for giving credence to allegations of evil.
"Oh, they're probably evil"
"Says who?"
"I dunno, they didn't identify themselves"
"So what did they do that is so evil?"
"I dunno, they didn't say"
That's moronic.
Stratfor isn't the kind of intelligence that involves eavesdropping and wiretaps. There's also "open source" intelligence, which is pretty much just anything that is published or broadcast in or about a country of interest. I think Stratfor deals with that, and also likely has direct contacts and sources who can provide information, like any journalistic operation.
Stratfor is an information company. They provide information. Remember the huge, violent protests in Bangkok a while back? If hard drive companies, or companies reliant on hard drives, wanted to know the possible repercussions of those protests, they would probably turn to a company like Stratfor, Jane's, or the Economist, for analysis by experts. "Would the current government fall? Would the military take over again? How likely is it that our factories and supply lines would be effected?"
That's all Stratfor does. They provide information and analysis. What their clients *do* with that information is the clients' responsibility.
Anonymous is basically trying to silence an information source.
It's not really a "think tank" in the sense of AEI or Heritage, which exist mostly to push a political agenda. It's more like Jane's (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx) or the Economist magazine's "Economist Intelligence Unit".
You know the companies that do market studies of storage makers, or mobile operating systems? Gartner and whatnot?
Stratfor, Jane's, etc, serve a similar purpose in the area of countries and regions, instead of product areas. Companies don't want to spend a bunch of money to hire staffers whose job is keeping track of what's going on in countries around the world. Apple doesn't want to have someone working to keep track of what may happen in Brazil or Turkey or Thailand when there is a change of government, or civil unrest. So they turn to companies that specialize in that sort of research and analysis.