I think you have missed the original poster's main point. The news was out today Monday. Thus stock activity today makes sense, but unusual stock activity on Friday, before the settlement was general knowledge, could imply that insider knowledge was at work.
I think your point about the low price is good, but you ignore the point about volume that the parent made. Since the price increase went hand-in-hand with a high volume of trading, I would say that the evidence points more toward insider trading than to a vanilla stock-market day.
I don't want a President who walks the party line, but I've also had enough of a President that does whatever the hell they want without regard to other's opinions. I want to see a President who has things he or she wants to get done, but who doesn't just talk about them to the press. I want a President who actively encourages legislators from both sides of the aisle to know one another as people, rather than opponents.
What I really appreciated about Fallout was the lovely skill system, the perk system, and character customization. As long as these traits are preserved (along with the humor), Fallout 3 will be fun, and the exact details of how the game mechanics play out don't matter.
A squad equipped with unified system of all these high tech ideas we've been reading about could act as elite shock troops to anchor normally equipped troops, just as Roman regular army squads were used to supplement and strengthen the typical mercenary and conscript troops.
Just off the top of my head, in the last few months there have been slashdot articles about:
lighter, stronger body armor with the ability to flex and "breathe".
a blood cooling system which exponentially increases muscles' endurance.
this "heads up" sensor
Night vision that allows color recognition
non-lethal microwave weapons, suited to urban warfare in environments with mixed combatant and civilian populations
an invisibility cloak (which would have to be vehicle-mounted due to weight, size, and power requirements), making it less applicable to this list)
small, light, and rugged UAV's suited to urban environments
target recognition systems which could be used to give soldiers a "minimap" similar to video games like Battlefield 2. (This one anticipates the incorporation of non-satellite input data from UAV's, etc.)
Frightening to think that in twenty or thirty years, infantry warfare could be more like science fiction than anything we'd recognize now. Hell, it is already science fiction compared to Vietnam, Korea, or the Cold War. I can see why field infantry wouldn't want to bother with equipment like this, since it would have tremendous maintenance costs, training costs, and technical knowledge requirements. The entire force wouldn't be equipped in this way, but an army will always have a use for elite units.
The people I play games with tend to hit on or under the "expected playtime" for board games. I think the problem, if you consider it a problem, comes from your particular group of friends. Most game estimates expect that each player will be familiar with the rules, but will not rules-lawyer. They expect that each player will play to win, but they don't expect that each player will be a mini-Machiavelli. The important thing is to have fun; if you are having fun playing, it shouldn't matter how long the game takes to finish. If you want a shorter game try playing for a predetermined number of turns, or time limit, or similar arbitrary method.
No, they mean games in the German-style board game genre. Germany currently has one of the most vibrant board game design cultures in the world. This is largely fueled by the Spiel des Jahres, the most prestigious prize in the board game industry. Some popular recent winners are Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, El Grande, Settlers of Catan, Call My Bluff, and Scotland Yard. If you see "Spiel des Jahres" winner on a game box, you can buy it without second thought—winners are fantastic games.
Huh, yeah... we have very different senses of humor. I thought the funniest joke of that episode was, "Errrph hernia!" as they were lifting the jeep. And I didn't think the "I could tell you what we weren't doing..." joke was very funny at all. But hey, tastes differ. I did really like that season finale episode where there were a bunch of time-traveling clones....
I agree with this. I really liked the first season, and watched each episode as it was released. I lost interest midway through the second season and never really went back. They did have some really great jokes though. "Shotgun!" "Shotgun!" "Fuck."
I love that gag. It is so easy to imagine that it actually happened. Here is what I thought the most striking part of the interview was, "I just want to kill the idea that you have to be bland to appeal to your market, though I know a lot of the BBC old guard still regard Hitchhiker's as a momentary aberration, a fluke, and not really what radio comedy ought to be about." Adam's work definitely displays his quirky, almost backwards way of looking at life, and it is easy to see why his ideas didn't get a lot of immediate traction. However, between that outlook and his gift for wordplay, in my opinion, he is the best recent comedy writer. (I don't think Johnathan Swift's satire is beatable.)
The entire point of Viacom's case is that they don't want to grind out cease and desist orders. They want YouTube to self-regulate uploaded content, and they want to be able to sue YouTube for copyright infringement for uploaded material without going through the cease-and-desist cycle. I doubt that Viacom gives a rat's ass about material that isn't theirs—I have trouble believing that baseless cease-and-desist orders are malicious rather than accidental. So that's Viacom. If they win, they maintain the status quo and offload the expense of protecting their intellectual property. If they lose, nothing change. They keep patrolling YouTube and similar services and keep cranking out takedown letters. There will be no shareholder backlash, because shareholders realize that Viacom's value is in their intellectual property. This IP will not be damaged by losing a court battle with Google.
Google has more invested that Viacom. Since multiple facets of their business rely in distributing copyrighted material (search, scholastic papers search, book search, YouTube, etc) while selling advertising, one of their long-term goal as a company must be to maintain current copyright law at worst and relax it at best. I think this point is critical. Google's revenue entirely relies on material that they are not creating. (Whereas Viacom employs content creators via child companies and subsidiaries, and uses this content for revenue.)
In conclusion, if Viacom loses this fight, they merely maintain the status quo. They will have to adjust their business strategy in the long term to deal with digital distribution, but they have breathing space. If Google loses this fight, their entire business strategy is endangered. While their search and its advertising revenue will not immediately dry up, they can anticipate that copyright law will increasingly be used against them.
omfgpwnt I have a better idea—don't tag it that. Google's publicists didn't get in any more concrete argument here than Viacom's did.
Both Google and Viacom desperately want to set the agenda and the precedent for online distribution of media. With the increased importance of digital distribution, the future of both companies may depend on convincing the courts to see things their way. These ploys are merely the skirmishes between forces scouting for good positions; the real battle is yet to come.
Actually, according to the article, "A deterioration of the political and regulatory environment in the US prompted the fall." However, "Despite losing its top position, the US still maintained a strong focus on innovation, driven by one of the world's best tertiary education systems and its high degree of co-operation with industry."
Don't mod me informative; it is just copy-and-paste magic for people as lazy as the parent poster.
As a slight caveat, most moral codes boil down to the negative form of the Golden Rule—Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. It is the difference between, "Do no evil" and "Do good." As far as I know Christianity and its offshoots are unusual in the instruction to be proactive.
I don't agree with your allegation. The article is certainly long, and it covers a lot of points, but it is distinctly about Net Neutrality except where it gets distracted condemning the people behind MAPS. Here is an executive summary. Most of it is direct quotations, but I did a little editing for clarity and conciseness.
This issue started with the Realtime Blackhole List (RBL), a blacklist for spammers, which was started by a group called the Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS).
Most ISPs using the RBL used it to filter only incoming e-mail, but AboveNet blocked RBL'ed web sites as well. It turned out that the RBL not only included spammers, but also Web sites that were not sending mail at all but were blocked because of their content -- in our case, our ISP got blocked because some other customers were selling mailing list software that MAPS believed could be too easily abused by spammers. The most controversial feature of the RBL is that if an ISP didn't comply, MAPS would start blacklisting other unrelated sites at the same ISP to put more pressure on them.
This example illustrates two points that go to the heart of what Net Neutrality is, and isn't, about. (1) The difference between blocking incoming spam and blocking Web sites, and (2) the difference between blocking traffic due to spam activity and blocking sites because of content. Net Neutrality is about putting the preferences of the user first; a user should be allowed to visit a website but should also be protected from spam.
But by far the most common objection to my complaint about AboveNet blocking Web sites was, "Hey, if a private company blocks things, as long as they're being honest to their users about it, who cares?" If you're tempted to argue that backbone providers should be allowed to block whatever they want as long as they put it in their AUP, just consider: When you access Google from your home computer, have you read the AUP of every network that the packets pass through, to check whether they reserve the right to block or even modify your traffic? Do you really want the burden to be on you to check with all of them every time there's a problem reaching a Web site? Or do you feel like there's an understanding that as long as you pay your bill, they should let you go wherever you want? [Edit: This is a slippery slope argument, but I'm including it since the point is pretty obvious.]
The modern-day threats to Net Neutrality are different: slowing access to Web sites unless the site owners pay a "toll", instead of blocking access to sites because of the content of other sites hosted at the same ISP. But they both boil down to the same thing: not giving end users what they have already paid for. [Edit: At this point there is a simple review of net neutrality. Read the 10th paragraph and blockquote if you are interested.]
[Edit: A lengthy discussion of where the MAPS people are now and all the (negative) stuff they are saying about Net Neutrality.]
Any informed debate about Net Neutrality has to include the fact that some providers have blocked Web sites on purpose, for long periods of time, and that the free market didn't fix it by itself. Even if something on the scale of outright blocking never happens again, it is wishful thinking to think that the free market and anti-trust laws will prevent ISPs from merely slowing down Web access to sites that haven't paid a "toll".
You misinterpreted the statement. The CCP representative was saying that the developer didn't know why he cheated. Obviously he wishes he hadn't done it now, but that doesn't change that facts. It is almost irrelevant to the discussion (see appeal to emotion--we are to feel sorry for the dev.) In my opinion the answer about the scandal was basically making feeble excuses for an even more feeble official response.
You ought to search for the article, but here is the situation as I understand it (as a non-player). Basically a CCP employee spawned in some ultra-rare recipes for making items and gave them to his company in exchange for being promoted into a management position. CCP only got busted when a non-employee player got access to the SQL logs and found some incriminating conversations. CCP proceeded to attempt a cover up involving massive post removal and player banning.
Right on. My Verizon contract just expired, and I promptly moved to prepaid. I'm saving almost $30 a month. Prepaid phones are great if you don't use many minutes. My particular phone has ridiculously good deals for data and texting if I were interested in that.
Similarly telling is the fact that many cell phones don't let you upload your own software, and cell phone companies tend to regard the idea with skepticism. And who can blame them really—I won't pay for a tetris program I could easily write myself.
I know nothing about quantum computing—I can't comment on whether it is likely that the chip performs. I do think it is likely that NASA delivered a chip that does exactly what the specifications say it is to do. The question is whether the specifications describe a functional quantum chip. If I recall the original article correctly, there were questions about whether the demo computer worked at all, much less scaled to a useful level.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have missed the original poster's main point. The news was out today Monday. Thus stock activity today makes sense, but unusual stock activity on Friday, before the settlement was general knowledge, could imply that insider knowledge was at work.
I think your point about the low price is good, but you ignore the point about volume that the parent made. Since the price increase went hand-in-hand with a high volume of trading, I would say that the evidence points more toward insider trading than to a vanilla stock-market day.
I don't want a President who walks the party line, but I've also had enough of a President that does whatever the hell they want without regard to other's opinions. I want to see a President who has things he or she wants to get done, but who doesn't just talk about them to the press. I want a President who actively encourages legislators from both sides of the aisle to know one another as people, rather than opponents.
Love your username. I assume you are looking forward to the new Fallout in the same cautious optimism that I am.
Uncle Enzo guarantees delivery within 30 minutes!
I said that mechanics don't really matter for the game to be fun. I didn't say they didn't affect gameplay. If the game if fun, I'll be satisfied.
What I really appreciated about Fallout was the lovely skill system, the perk system, and character customization. As long as these traits are preserved (along with the humor), Fallout 3 will be fun, and the exact details of how the game mechanics play out don't matter.
Just off the top of my head, in the last few months there have been slashdot articles about:
Frightening to think that in twenty or thirty years, infantry warfare could be more like science fiction than anything we'd recognize now. Hell, it is already science fiction compared to Vietnam, Korea, or the Cold War. I can see why field infantry wouldn't want to bother with equipment like this, since it would have tremendous maintenance costs, training costs, and technical knowledge requirements. The entire force wouldn't be equipped in this way, but an army will always have a use for elite units.
The people I play games with tend to hit on or under the "expected playtime" for board games. I think the problem, if you consider it a problem, comes from your particular group of friends. Most game estimates expect that each player will be familiar with the rules, but will not rules-lawyer. They expect that each player will play to win, but they don't expect that each player will be a mini-Machiavelli. The important thing is to have fun; if you are having fun playing, it shouldn't matter how long the game takes to finish. If you want a shorter game try playing for a predetermined number of turns, or time limit, or similar arbitrary method.
No, they mean games in the German-style board game genre. Germany currently has one of the most vibrant board game design cultures in the world. This is largely fueled by the Spiel des Jahres, the most prestigious prize in the board game industry. Some popular recent winners are Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, El Grande, Settlers of Catan, Call My Bluff, and Scotland Yard. If you see "Spiel des Jahres" winner on a game box, you can buy it without second thought—winners are fantastic games.
Huh, yeah... we have very different senses of humor. I thought the funniest joke of that episode was, "Errrph hernia!" as they were lifting the jeep. And I didn't think the "I could tell you what we weren't doing..." joke was very funny at all. But hey, tastes differ. I did really like that season finale episode where there were a bunch of time-traveling clones....
I agree with this. I really liked the first season, and watched each episode as it was released. I lost interest midway through the second season and never really went back. They did have some really great jokes though. "Shotgun!" "Shotgun!" "Fuck."
I love that gag. It is so easy to imagine that it actually happened. Here is what I thought the most striking part of the interview was, "I just want to kill the idea that you have to be bland to appeal to your market, though I know a lot of the BBC old guard still regard Hitchhiker's as a momentary aberration, a fluke, and not really what radio comedy ought to be about." Adam's work definitely displays his quirky, almost backwards way of looking at life, and it is easy to see why his ideas didn't get a lot of immediate traction. However, between that outlook and his gift for wordplay, in my opinion, he is the best recent comedy writer. (I don't think Johnathan Swift's satire is beatable.)
The entire point of Viacom's case is that they don't want to grind out cease and desist orders. They want YouTube to self-regulate uploaded content, and they want to be able to sue YouTube for copyright infringement for uploaded material without going through the cease-and-desist cycle. I doubt that Viacom gives a rat's ass about material that isn't theirs—I have trouble believing that baseless cease-and-desist orders are malicious rather than accidental. So that's Viacom. If they win, they maintain the status quo and offload the expense of protecting their intellectual property. If they lose, nothing change. They keep patrolling YouTube and similar services and keep cranking out takedown letters. There will be no shareholder backlash, because shareholders realize that Viacom's value is in their intellectual property. This IP will not be damaged by losing a court battle with Google.
Google has more invested that Viacom. Since multiple facets of their business rely in distributing copyrighted material (search, scholastic papers search, book search, YouTube, etc) while selling advertising, one of their long-term goal as a company must be to maintain current copyright law at worst and relax it at best. I think this point is critical. Google's revenue entirely relies on material that they are not creating. (Whereas Viacom employs content creators via child companies and subsidiaries, and uses this content for revenue.)
In conclusion, if Viacom loses this fight, they merely maintain the status quo. They will have to adjust their business strategy in the long term to deal with digital distribution, but they have breathing space. If Google loses this fight, their entire business strategy is endangered. While their search and its advertising revenue will not immediately dry up, they can anticipate that copyright law will increasingly be used against them.
Both Google and Viacom desperately want to set the agenda and the precedent for online distribution of media. With the increased importance of digital distribution, the future of both companies may depend on convincing the courts to see things their way. These ploys are merely the skirmishes between forces scouting for good positions; the real battle is yet to come.
Actually, according to the article, "A deterioration of the political and regulatory environment in the US prompted the fall." However, "Despite losing its top position, the US still maintained a strong focus on innovation, driven by one of the world's best tertiary education systems and its high degree of co-operation with industry."
Don't mod me informative; it is just copy-and-paste magic for people as lazy as the parent poster.
As a slight caveat, most moral codes boil down to the negative form of the Golden Rule—Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. It is the difference between, "Do no evil" and "Do good." As far as I know Christianity and its offshoots are unusual in the instruction to be proactive.
I fail to see how cheating in a game you develop is a good idea at any time.
You misinterpreted the statement. The CCP representative was saying that the developer didn't know why he cheated. Obviously he wishes he hadn't done it now, but that doesn't change that facts. It is almost irrelevant to the discussion (see appeal to emotion--we are to feel sorry for the dev.) In my opinion the answer about the scandal was basically making feeble excuses for an even more feeble official response.
You ought to search for the article, but here is the situation as I understand it (as a non-player). Basically a CCP employee spawned in some ultra-rare recipes for making items and gave them to his company in exchange for being promoted into a management position. CCP only got busted when a non-employee player got access to the SQL logs and found some incriminating conversations. CCP proceeded to attempt a cover up involving massive post removal and player banning.
Right on. My Verizon contract just expired, and I promptly moved to prepaid. I'm saving almost $30 a month. Prepaid phones are great if you don't use many minutes. My particular phone has ridiculously good deals for data and texting if I were interested in that.
Similarly telling is the fact that many cell phones don't let you upload your own software, and cell phone companies tend to regard the idea with skepticism. And who can blame them really—I won't pay for a tetris program I could easily write myself.
I know nothing about quantum computing—I can't comment on whether it is likely that the chip performs. I do think it is likely that NASA delivered a chip that does exactly what the specifications say it is to do. The question is whether the specifications describe a functional quantum chip. If I recall the original article correctly, there were questions about whether the demo computer worked at all, much less scaled to a useful level.
Imply means "To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death." It is what I meant, but please play again!
The existence of a chip does not imply that said chip actually works.