This thing keeps telling me I'm overweight, but really it is just because I have gigantic muscles. Then it asks me why I gained weight, and there is no option for, "My biceps are really huge right now." Luckily, it hasn't hurt my self-esteem.
I don't have any numbers for you, but I read this article , which is about a guy who republished vintage cocktail books due to the prices on ebay becoming ridiculous.
Xbox could put out 1080i(Dragon's Lair 3d/cutscenes on the Xmen game, i think), but very few games used it. It was a real pain on my tv because the dashboard was stuck at 480i, which my old television would not display through component cables. I'd have to use RCA's to switch the resolution, at which point the screen would go blank, at which point I would switch to the component cables. That's what happens when you're an early adopter.
I too am not a lawyer, but I feel qualified to speak on the topic because you don't seem to understand the difference between a contract and a subpoena and were modded up to +5 interesting.
You are wrong on both counts, at least in the US(and probably in England too as much of the common law is derived from England). Legal documents do not have to be delivered in order to be enforceable(which is what I think you mean by "legal"). There is something called the "mailbox rule" which states that an offer is accepted once the acceptance is placed in the mail.
Service of process is not a contract. It is a letter telling you that you are being sued and that you have to appear in court. I don't know the rules for effective service in England, but I am guessing that actual service(he actually received the document and read it) is probably sufficient.
Fun to argue in court? Hardly. I can't imagine a judge would be too happy when you come to court to argue that you didn't get a letter telling you to come to court. It's been done, but generally with a better argument than "i had to pay for a small part of the postage."
While I am not certain, I am going to guess that coming up a little short on postage doesn't render service deficient in England.
I agree with you, I'm currently studying insider trading in law school and can't find anything illegal here. It could be over my head, and I would be interested to hear an explanation of what exactly the illegal part is. It seems to me to be a guide on how an insider can trade without violating the law.
I don't think that is correct. It is illegal to pull out of a schedule based on inside information. 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3). Scheme also has to be entered into in good faith. 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii). I skimmed the document and didn't find any reference to this practice, or anything else that seemed patently illegal. If someone with more knowledge of the matter could point something out to me, I would be much obliged.
That is only good for you if you're an insider. This "information" you speak of is entering the market in the form of a price change, which means someone with inside information has just managed to buy shares from some poor sap who was not in possession of the information. The real upside would be that you wouldn't have to pay anyone to run companies because they would make far more money insider trading than by doing anything else. Whether they would run the company well is another story, but they would make themselves tons of money. Let's look at a recent example-everyone at Bear Stearns who knew of the deal could have sold their shares before they went bust. Sure the selling would have depressed the price and people might have realized something bad was going on, but i don't know if they would have realized that the firm was about to be sold for 2 dollars a share. Because of our wonderful anti-insider trading laws, this gigantic loss was not foisted on an unsuspecting public. That to me is better than having information enter the market faster.
I thought that the question on point was the following:
Does termination of a plan affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions? Does canceling one or more plan transactions affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions?
Termination of a plan, or the cancellation of one or more plan transactions, could affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions if it calls into question whether the plan was "entered into in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade" the insider trading rules within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii). The absence of good faith or presence of a scheme to evade would eliminate the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior transactions under the plan.
From what I know the affirmative defense of having a trading plan, according to 10b5-1(c)(1)(i) requires that the person did not exercise any influence on "whether to effect purchases or sales." In other words, putting a plan into writing and then pulling out based on inside information is illegal.
Same thing happened many years ago in a case called Chiarella, the low-tech version of this case. A printer was stealing corporate information and trading on it. The court found him not guilty based on the same statute. Congress did nothing. Who can blame them? They're busy doing important stuff like investigating the Patriots and asking Roger Clemens if he's a vegan.
You've gotta be kidding. Who modded this guy up? I know that anti-Sony opinions are popular here, but this is just insane. The PS3 has not cost $600 since June of 2007. Welcome to 2008. PS3 is currently selling for $400 or $500 depending on the model. You can buy a regular Blu Ray player for $350. Blu Rays are available for less than $25. Take a look at Amazon.com. HD-DVD players are selling for $150 because no one wants to buy a player that is already obsolete.
I think that was how much money they were losing at launch. Think they're pretty close to cost right now. Too lazy to get an article to back it up though.
While I agree with much of what you said, the video game console is one of the few things left where the user doesn't always pay in the end. While everyone knows that most consoles are initially sold at a loss (not the Wii though), the PS3 was initially sold at a phenomenal loss. Why was Sony willing to subsidize it so much? They profit from game sales and Blu-Ray sales. The same sort of synergy did not exist for the 360 because Microsoft didn't really care who won the format war, they just wanted to create confusion until they could perfect digital delivery (the michael bay theory). This is probably why the 360 plus HD-DVD drive still cost more than Sony's machine. (That and the fact that you had to pay for two disk drives). While people are still calling the PS3 a failure, I think in this case the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive was a smart business decision that virtually guaranteed victory in the format war.
This is one of the rare cases when a state will sanction a monopoly because it more or less makes sense to. For every competitor, you're going to have another cable run through your town. It's the same reason you can't choose where you get your electricity from. Everyone saves money if we can have 1 wire rather than 10. Not sure if they can have multiple competing carriers running over the same length of coax (although they do it for internet where I live).
If it is any indicator they came out with Madden this year for Xbox. Pretty much the only game to come out for it all year. They'll probably release Madden ps2 for another 2 or 3 years.
Someone should come out with a Guantanamo simulator for the Wii with motion-control waterboarding rated E for everyone due to lack of torture and compliance with the Geneva Conventions. That would shut them up.
Slashdot Mirror
On Rock Band I noticed that the tracks from ...And Justice for All had audible bass.
This thing keeps telling me I'm overweight, but really it is just because I have gigantic muscles. Then it asks me why I gained weight, and there is no option for, "My biceps are really huge right now." Luckily, it hasn't hurt my self-esteem.
Meant to link the article in the above post: An article about a guy who republished out-of-print cocktail books. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/dining/30cocktail.html
I don't have any numbers for you, but I read this article , which is about a guy who republished vintage cocktail books due to the prices on ebay becoming ridiculous.
Xbox could put out 1080i(Dragon's Lair 3d/cutscenes on the Xmen game, i think), but very few games used it. It was a real pain on my tv because the dashboard was stuck at 480i, which my old television would not display through component cables. I'd have to use RCA's to switch the resolution, at which point the screen would go blank, at which point I would switch to the component cables. That's what happens when you're an early adopter.
I too am not a lawyer, but I feel qualified to speak on the topic because you don't seem to understand the difference between a contract and a subpoena and were modded up to +5 interesting. You are wrong on both counts, at least in the US(and probably in England too as much of the common law is derived from England). Legal documents do not have to be delivered in order to be enforceable(which is what I think you mean by "legal"). There is something called the "mailbox rule" which states that an offer is accepted once the acceptance is placed in the mail. Service of process is not a contract. It is a letter telling you that you are being sued and that you have to appear in court. I don't know the rules for effective service in England, but I am guessing that actual service(he actually received the document and read it) is probably sufficient. Fun to argue in court? Hardly. I can't imagine a judge would be too happy when you come to court to argue that you didn't get a letter telling you to come to court. It's been done, but generally with a better argument than "i had to pay for a small part of the postage." While I am not certain, I am going to guess that coming up a little short on postage doesn't render service deficient in England.
I still remember a friend of mine getting sick from playing descent. I hope they vomit-proof these things.
If, as you assert, there are legal ways(more than one!) for a CEO to trade on his stock based on inside information, I would like to name one.
I agree with you, I'm currently studying insider trading in law school and can't find anything illegal here. It could be over my head, and I would be interested to hear an explanation of what exactly the illegal part is. It seems to me to be a guide on how an insider can trade without violating the law.
I don't think that is correct. It is illegal to pull out of a schedule based on inside information. 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3). Scheme also has to be entered into in good faith. 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii). I skimmed the document and didn't find any reference to this practice, or anything else that seemed patently illegal. If someone with more knowledge of the matter could point something out to me, I would be much obliged.
That is only good for you if you're an insider. This "information" you speak of is entering the market in the form of a price change, which means someone with inside information has just managed to buy shares from some poor sap who was not in possession of the information. The real upside would be that you wouldn't have to pay anyone to run companies because they would make far more money insider trading than by doing anything else. Whether they would run the company well is another story, but they would make themselves tons of money. Let's look at a recent example-everyone at Bear Stearns who knew of the deal could have sold their shares before they went bust. Sure the selling would have depressed the price and people might have realized something bad was going on, but i don't know if they would have realized that the firm was about to be sold for 2 dollars a share. Because of our wonderful anti-insider trading laws, this gigantic loss was not foisted on an unsuspecting public. That to me is better than having information enter the market faster.
I thought that the question on point was the following: Does termination of a plan affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions? Does canceling one or more plan transactions affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions? Termination of a plan, or the cancellation of one or more plan transactions, could affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions if it calls into question whether the plan was "entered into in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade" the insider trading rules within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii). The absence of good faith or presence of a scheme to evade would eliminate the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior transactions under the plan. From what I know the affirmative defense of having a trading plan, according to 10b5-1(c)(1)(i) requires that the person did not exercise any influence on "whether to effect purchases or sales." In other words, putting a plan into writing and then pulling out based on inside information is illegal.
Same thing happened many years ago in a case called Chiarella, the low-tech version of this case. A printer was stealing corporate information and trading on it. The court found him not guilty based on the same statute. Congress did nothing. Who can blame them? They're busy doing important stuff like investigating the Patriots and asking Roger Clemens if he's a vegan.
. . .before they told Microsoft they were undervalued.
You've gotta be kidding. Who modded this guy up? I know that anti-Sony opinions are popular here, but this is just insane. The PS3 has not cost $600 since June of 2007. Welcome to 2008. PS3 is currently selling for $400 or $500 depending on the model. You can buy a regular Blu Ray player for $350. Blu Rays are available for less than $25. Take a look at Amazon.com. HD-DVD players are selling for $150 because no one wants to buy a player that is already obsolete.
I think that was how much money they were losing at launch. Think they're pretty close to cost right now. Too lazy to get an article to back it up though.
They use DRM so people pay for the games.
While I agree with much of what you said, the video game console is one of the few things left where the user doesn't always pay in the end. While everyone knows that most consoles are initially sold at a loss (not the Wii though), the PS3 was initially sold at a phenomenal loss. Why was Sony willing to subsidize it so much? They profit from game sales and Blu-Ray sales. The same sort of synergy did not exist for the 360 because Microsoft didn't really care who won the format war, they just wanted to create confusion until they could perfect digital delivery (the michael bay theory). This is probably why the 360 plus HD-DVD drive still cost more than Sony's machine. (That and the fact that you had to pay for two disk drives). While people are still calling the PS3 a failure, I think in this case the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive was a smart business decision that virtually guaranteed victory in the format war.
Apparently the Virtual Console store in Japan now has two vacant slots on it. http://kotaku.com/335527/two-more-consoles-for-virtual-console Either Sega likes to waste money extending their trademarks, or Dreamcast compatibility is coming soon.
This is one of the rare cases when a state will sanction a monopoly because it more or less makes sense to. For every competitor, you're going to have another cable run through your town. It's the same reason you can't choose where you get your electricity from. Everyone saves money if we can have 1 wire rather than 10. Not sure if they can have multiple competing carriers running over the same length of coax (although they do it for internet where I live).
The intro track was pretty cool. I think it was by a band called the Gone Jackals, but it was a long time ago so I don't remember.
If it is any indicator they came out with Madden this year for Xbox. Pretty much the only game to come out for it all year. They'll probably release Madden ps2 for another 2 or 3 years.
Also, if you pay attention to the game charts, the hot new titles often outsell titles for the last gen systems, despite their smaller install base.
Someone should come out with a Guantanamo simulator for the Wii with motion-control waterboarding rated E for everyone due to lack of torture and compliance with the Geneva Conventions. That would shut them up.
Ha, I actually used to have that game when I was about 5 years old. All I remember is jumping into craters for pieces of phone.