I don't go to terrible movies because of all the sex and violence. Chick flicks all end the same way. That leaves cartoons which I find very satisfying.
But I made a big mistake when I rented "The Sponge Bob That Didn't Bark."
AC, are you basing any of your prejudice and disdain of Tim Cook on anything that occurred before January 2011, when he became acting CEO of Apple? Were you aware of his rapacious, ravenous nature before he joined Apple in 1998. Did he display that sort of behavior when he was COO?
Could it be that you really weren't aware of this flaw in his personality until "In early 2012, he was awarded compensation of 1 million shares, vesting in 2021, by Apple's Board of Directors.[5] As of April 2012, these shares are valued at US $600 million, making him the world's highest paid CEO?"(Wikipedia)
Was accepting this remuneration which was voted by the Board a mistake or good sense? Wasn't the Board, in replacing Steve Jobs, looking for an aggressive, go-get-em-guy to take over for the deceased glorious leader?
How would it look then if the man they had chosen, this ex COO and ex acting CEO, turned to the board, like Caspar Milquetoast, and said "Oooh, that's way too much money"?
If he had said that, the Board would say: "Thank you, Mr Cook. NEXT"
Well, whether it is his conscience or concern about a public lynching, he did the right the thing, didn't he? People do change their ways. I'm sure there were those who didn't think Scrooge had changed over night.
Right now I only have 2 data points. I'm going to wait for at least one more.
I must correct the notion that we had a four day bubble. There's no such thing. We saw a completely different animal. The underwriters, who obviously expected stronger demand for shares, got hoist on their scam. A scam that worked thousands of times before.
Can anyone explain what happens when this really tanks like drops below 10 dollars a share
Zuck, who sold many shares between $42 and $30 can have his broker slowly buy the stock back at $10 and and when he owns enough, take Facebook private again..
Except if you and your accomplices have been shorting the stock down from $40 and are now covering your shorts at $10.. Then you take the enormous profit you made and start buying the stock in earnest. When the stock gets back to $40 and all the nervous sellers are gone, you start as many rumors as you can and sell out at $90.
"In the U.S., in order to sell stocks short, the seller must arrange for a broker-dealer to confirm that it is able to make delivery of the shorted securities. This is referred to as a "locate.” Brokers have a variety of means to borrow stocks in order to facilitate locates and make good delivery of the shorted security."
"The vast majority of stocks borrowed by U.S. brokers come from loans made by the leading custody banks and fund management companies."
Ask yourself why would one of the bank/underwriters loan you the stocks for you to sell it (short)?" Especially if they're also selling the stock to drive the price down and buy it back at the lower price. And perhaps profiting from the sale because of the lower price that they paid for FaceBook stock as underwriter.
@Richard Jukes. This was the 'market condition' that would not let you short the stock. No broker would loan your broker the stock to short.
BTW "Underwriters are paid commissions, securities, or through a combination of fees and securities. In a firm commitment the price underwriters pay the company for the securities is expected to be less than the price offered to the public. This "underwriter's spread" compensates the underwriter for conducting the offering. The spread averages 10 percent or less and is dependent on the anticipated complexity and size of the offering. The maximum spread allowed by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) is 10 percent."
@stanimir. I assume you know this. If you by a stock for $25, all you can lose is $25. If you short a stock at $25 you can lose gazillions. The stock can go to $50, $100, $200 and eventually you'll have to cover.
I wouldn't be surprized to see the stock continue it's downward trend until all the weak holders are shaken out. The stock hits $25. They quietly start buying it back to $38, Then come the rumors. The misleading stories about new and better technology and the phony revenue and profit figures. The banks buy the stock all the way up to $55. They sell it back down to $44 and with those profits buy it back up to $70. Then the most outrageous rumor of all. The stock spikes up and goes back down to $40. (Of course this works better when the whole market is bubbling and the economy is strong.)
How many times have I seen that trick! I was even in on one in the first dotcom. Got in at $2. Got out in the mid $20s. Watched it go to into the 50's. A worthless company that made Facebook look like IBM.
If Schumer and Casey aren't proposing a "Bill of Attainder...
then I'm the corsetier to Marie of Romania
"A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial".
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that renders inadmissible any former citizen who is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to have ditched their citizenship for tax purposes."
Shirley Saverin has the money to test the 1996 law in the Supreme Court. But doesn't it beg the question why he would he want to visit here?
As someone suggested earlier, his only worry is being nabbed by Interpol while visiting some expensive place and then hustled like Eichmann back to Washington and the water board.
There is a blog at The Guardian which purports to show the order book for FaceBook yesterday at 12:34pm ET.
<<"A screen grab of the order book for Facebook. The big yellow block represents bids for shares at $38.
Business Insider gets a look at the order book, sent in by Twitter user @Bourbon_Meyer.
"It strongly appears that there's a huge perma-bid at $38 on Facebook," Joe Weisenthal writes. "Check out the big mass of yellow on the left column... all those bids at $38.">>
I can't copy the chart, but if you go to the Guardian you will see how the underwriter's manipulation supported the $38 price, which uninitiated investors attribute to other investors like themselves.
Let's say you were in at the start of a company like FB and were vested with shares now estimated to be worth a $ billion. You have a $ million dollars in cash and equivalents, but your billion dollars is tied up in stock that is not traded. Then your company announces an IPO.
Do you want to keep all your eggs in one basket or be prudent? Do you cash out half or do you let it all ride for another spin of the roulette wheel and maybe have $2 billion?
If you sell you should sell on IPO day as that's the day that you can sell into a market with more than enough buyers to get out without skewing the price. If you wait a couple months, the amount of stock you're selling will drive down the price and take weeks to get off.
What does the reasonable man do? I know what I'd do.
""International Space Station" they built which despite the profound sounding name, is basically just a big room floating in space."
Your commentary on Space coincided exactly with my thoughts, with the exception of the "big room floating in space. I, too, see a big room floating in space, but my big room is filled to the rafters with missiles of all sizes and shapes and warheads.
With the missile shield contracting around Russia, skuttlebutt is the Russian have rented a room in the Chinese Space Station to counter the negative impact of the US/NATO anti-ballistic missile system and the Chinese are helping them unload crates of rockets right now.
" However, through the mysteries of IPOing, it actually opened at $42,"
It is not a mystery.
It is a market order called "buy on opening". Today everybody who bought the opening is out 4 bucks a share. They don't care 'cause they know it's going to $90 by Halloween. And they're going to double up when it hits $34.
God Bless them everyone. They made Wall Street rich and powerful.
Well, of course. After they seize, confiscate and capture most of the oil on the planet, they will roll around in their armored personnel carriers until everyone else is dead. They will breed with female soldiers who have been accepted into the US Army because of their enticing bods and live in pleasant bases which have been purged of radioactivity. I forget the rest. See the end of "Dr. Strangelove."
The expression 'PIN number' is only used 3 times at the beginning of Simon Travaglia's monograph, but then the correct acronym, 'PIN', is used four times after that. Travaglia obviously put 'PIN number' at the beginning of his work to generate frivolity and bonhomie in the commentary of the old timers here.. Other commenters may have been in on the scheme.
According to some other posts, he has just returned after an absence and probably wants to be stood a pint or two.
I'd need to see the dust and particles on his luggage to say where he's been.
The buyer misrepresented who the real buyer was. The seller misrepresented who owned the copyright.
There was no contract. It was void from the get go.
The only difference between their two deceits, is that if the buyer made and sold maxipads, the real owner of the copyright would have settled for $55k.
RE: What matters is not what you think it's what was in the contract
MISREPRESENTATION
An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.
Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss. For example, assume that a real estate speculator owns swampland but advertises it as valuable commercially zoned land. This is a misrepresentation. If someone buys the land relying on the speculator's statement that it is commercially valuable, the buyer may sue the speculator for monetary losses resulting from the purchase.
Some misrepresentations are made by buyers as well. Such as not being an agent for another buyer.
To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener.
Apple should always make "the lesser of 2 evils" argument.
Bad news for the tutti fruttis in this story.
"SHANGHAI (AP) — Apple Inc. risks losing the right to use the iPad trademark in China, a senior official suggested Tuesday(April 24), as a Chinese court was seeking to mediate a settlement between the technology giant and a local company challenging its use of the iPad name.
Yan Xiaohong, deputy director of the National Copyright Administration, told reporters in Beijing that the government regards Shenzhen Proview Technology as the rightful owner of the trademark for The popular tablet computers. His remarks could add to pressure on Apple to find a solution to the standoff.
Yan's comments followed news that the Guangdong High Court in southern China is seeking to arrange a settlement in the case. In late February, the court began hearing Apple's appeal of a lower court ruling that favored Proview in the trademark dispute"
"Oh the tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive," as LG is fond of saying.
"If the full moon rising in the East struck you as unusually large Saturday night, you would be right. It did loom larger than usual. Though it's hardly a scientific term, it is what's known as a "supermoon." (@NedPotterABC)
Supermoon? Couldn't that be confused with Rush dropping his pants and bending over?
How can it be that unemployment will never be low again? The unemployed in large numbers are either dead, in prison or in the army. No satisfactory option there. If modern capitalism can not counter unemployment with all its technology and rocketing productivity, we must be under attack by diminishing returns and can only be delivered by some genius economist.
The oceans are dying, the climate has changed (maybe man is responsible. who cares?) our ground water is polluted, viruses and bacteria are becoming more drug resistant, we are about to run out of our most essential natural resource, the population growth will soon be a serial killer of the elderly.
Figuratively, a book George Orwell wrote over 60 years ago is becoming reality, like CGI in a billion dollar box office, 3D, action, sci-fi flick. Finally, the cold war is heating (freezing?) up again with the US/NATO encircling Russia with its missile shield defense. In February, it was reported, "Russian strategic nuclear submarines will resume routine extended patrols in international waters around the world in June 2012, Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said. “On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Vysotsky said at a meeting with naval personnel on Friday.
The annual number of extended patrols performed by Russian strategic nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered attack submarines has dropped from more than 230 in 1984 to less than 10 today."
Then there are the Iskander missile that the Russians are moving into the their western Kaliningrad district right next to Poland, which is hosting the NATO ABMs. Just last week the Russian General Staff announced it was reserving the right to make a preemptive strike against the NATO states hosting anti-missile missiles.
Have TPTB decided that this current 'weak recovery' needs a war like the Great Depression needed WW2?
It is the best of times for the 1% and soon will be the worst of times for everybody else.
If you run down the aisle of a train you are running in the opposite direction that the train is moving. So if the train is moving at the speed of light and you are running down the aisle you are moving slightly slower than the speed of light. You must start running up the aisle from the back of the train. When you reach the front you will have traveled faster than the speed of light. How cool is that?
Re: I've got a delivery of 12 million Mexicans for you. Where should I put them?
No one is going to argue with you that illegal aliens in the US aren't a problem. Unfortunately, solving the problem for the US, creates one for Mexico. Probably destabilizes it. Their unemployment rate immediately goes up. The $200 billion a year in remittances goes down. Even if the US and Mexico split the cost of a wall (what a horrible image that invokes, what with East Berlin, the West Bank, etc.), it's an unaffordable burden for them. And having to police the wall to keep its citizens from leaving...
It's a huge hit on the Mexican economy. And when all these young Mexicans go home and there are no jobs, how many of them will be recruited into the drug cartels?
I confess I don't know how many of the Mexicans picking vegetables under a cloudless sky in the 90 degree heat of Southern California are legal and how many are illegal. And who else wants to do that work? Same for the gardening crews that come around every week to weed-wack, chainsaw, mow and leaf blow. Same with the garbage truck drivers. I suspect that a large minority are illegal. And I also have a feeling that it's not going to be easy to find replacements for them. And that might mean offering a higher wage to get replacements. And if you do that, you have to raise the wages of the legal aliens and, it goes with saying, you have to charge the customers more.
Two other considerations. I have seen a number that there are from 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. What is your estimate as to how long it would take to round them all up? And more to the point how many agents would be required to get them all? And how much would it cost the Treasury? You know those Republicans. They like to stick to a budget.
Finally, how will our good ally and trusted oil supplier, Mexico, feel about 12 - 20 million of their expatriates dumped all of a sudden back onto the Streets of Laredo, Tamaulipas? Especially if they're having an unemployment problem?
To cut to the chase, all those illegals were remitting to their wives and children and their frail, old madres 200 billion a year. Don't you think those funds were goosing the Mexican economy a little and will be sorely missed when Christmas bonuses come round? I do.
I don't think your plan will get an inch off the ground.
If the object here is creating jobs, it would be counterproductive to export all the illegal aliens in the US. To pull all the money the illegals spend every day out of the economy would cause a negative ripple through it.
"" According to UCLA research, immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year. ""
$150 billion of economic activity is only1% of a $15 trillion GDP, but to withdraw it would hurt the taxpaying land lords, and the owners of small and large stores, restaurants and mechanics, who in turn would spend less at the businesses they frequent.
If your argument is that those who financially rule do not want the aliens repatriated, you're absolutely correct.
Register
538 posts • joined Monday 28th November 2011 18:23 GMT
Page:
Can I nominate a child's cartoon.
I don't go to terrible movies because of all the sex and violence. Chick flicks all end the same way. That leaves cartoons which I find very satisfying.
But I made a big mistake when I rented "The Sponge Bob That Didn't Bark."
Save your money.
I just returned from the bowels of google
AC, are you basing any of your prejudice and disdain of Tim Cook on anything that occurred before January 2011, when he became acting CEO of Apple? Were you aware of his rapacious, ravenous nature before he joined Apple in 1998. Did he display that sort of behavior when he was COO?
Could it be that you really weren't aware of this flaw in his personality until "In early 2012, he was awarded compensation of 1 million shares, vesting in 2021, by Apple's Board of Directors.[5] As of April 2012, these shares are valued at US $600 million, making him the world's highest paid CEO?"(Wikipedia)
Was accepting this remuneration which was voted by the Board a mistake or good sense? Wasn't the Board, in replacing Steve Jobs, looking for an aggressive, go-get-em-guy to take over for the deceased glorious leader?
How would it look then if the man they had chosen, this ex COO and ex acting CEO, turned to the board, like Caspar Milquetoast, and said "Oooh, that's way too much money"?
If he had said that, the Board would say: "Thank you, Mr Cook. NEXT"
Re: He must have read The Register.
Well, whether it is his conscience or concern about a public lynching, he did the right the thing, didn't he? People do change their ways. I'm sure there were those who didn't think Scrooge had changed over night.
Right now I only have 2 data points. I'm going to wait for at least one more.
He must have read The Register.
Greed is NOT good. And he believed it.
"Open the pod bay doors, Hal"
"I' sorry, Elon. I'm afraid I can't do that."
History made at Wall and Broad
I must correct the notion that we had a four day bubble. There's no such thing. We saw a completely different animal. The underwriters, who obviously expected stronger demand for shares, got hoist on their scam. A scam that worked thousands of times before.
Can anyone explain what happens when this really tanks like drops below 10 dollars a share
Zuck, who sold many shares between $42 and $30 can have his broker slowly buy the stock back at $10 and and when he owns enough, take Facebook private again..
Re: Buyer beware!
Except if you and your accomplices have been shorting the stock down from $40 and are now covering your shorts at $10.. Then you take the enormous profit you made and start buying the stock in earnest. When the stock gets back to $40 and all the nervous sellers are gone, you start as many rumors as you can and sell out at $90.
Rinse and repeat.
AC - I hope you enjoy this snippet
'and Bugatti (the owner) even refused to sell one to King Zog of Albania, claiming that "the man's table manners are beyond belief!"' (Wikipedia)
Now that's a brand!
Re: BUGATTI
a brand more valuable than any brands on your list
"Princes come. Princes go."
"An hour of pomp and show."
(For facebook: "Take my hand I'm a stranger in paradise")
Wachet auf ruft uns die stimme
"In the U.S., in order to sell stocks short, the seller must arrange for a broker-dealer to confirm that it is able to make delivery of the shorted securities. This is referred to as a "locate.” Brokers have a variety of means to borrow stocks in order to facilitate locates and make good delivery of the shorted security."
"The vast majority of stocks borrowed by U.S. brokers come from loans made by the leading custody banks and fund management companies."
Ask yourself why would one of the bank/underwriters loan you the stocks for you to sell it (short)?" Especially if they're also selling the stock to drive the price down and buy it back at the lower price. And perhaps profiting from the sale because of the lower price that they paid for FaceBook stock as underwriter.
@Richard Jukes. This was the 'market condition' that would not let you short the stock. No broker would loan your broker the stock to short.
BTW "Underwriters are paid commissions, securities, or through a combination of fees and securities. In a firm commitment the price underwriters pay the company for the securities is expected to be less than the price offered to the public. This "underwriter's spread" compensates the underwriter for conducting the offering. The spread averages 10 percent or less and is dependent on the anticipated complexity and size of the offering. The maximum spread allowed by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) is 10 percent."
@stanimir. I assume you know this. If you by a stock for $25, all you can lose is $25. If you short a stock at $25 you can lose gazillions. The stock can go to $50, $100, $200 and eventually you'll have to cover.
:-)
"More than just middlemen."
Middlewomen too.
Paris 'cos she loves being in the middle.
Now that all the mean, hurtful comments have been posted,
anybody want to chip in for a blender or a badminton set?
BIG DUMB GUY WAS AT THE WEDDING
DISNEYLAND TODAY THEN BACK TO EL REG
"ONE TRADING DAY DOES NOT A CAPITAL LOSS MAKE."
The banks are in this for the long haul.
I wouldn't be surprized to see the stock continue it's downward trend until all the weak holders are shaken out. The stock hits $25. They quietly start buying it back to $38, Then come the rumors. The misleading stories about new and better technology and the phony revenue and profit figures. The banks buy the stock all the way up to $55. They sell it back down to $44 and with those profits buy it back up to $70. Then the most outrageous rumor of all. The stock spikes up and goes back down to $40. (Of course this works better when the whole market is bubbling and the economy is strong.)
How many times have I seen that trick! I was even in on one in the first dotcom. Got in at $2. Got out in the mid $20s. Watched it go to into the 50's. A worthless company that made Facebook look like IBM.
Re: Whilst I would love to smile ...
"Is there a German word about "bitterly taking pleasure in others misfortunes?"
SAUERKRAUTENSCHADENFREUDE
If Schumer and Casey aren't proposing a "Bill of Attainder...
then I'm the corsetier to Marie of Romania
"A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial".
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that renders inadmissible any former citizen who is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to have ditched their citizenship for tax purposes."
Shirley Saverin has the money to test the 1996 law in the Supreme Court. But doesn't it beg the question why he would he want to visit here?
As someone suggested earlier, his only worry is being nabbed by Interpol while visiting some expensive place and then hustled like Eichmann back to Washington and the water board.
RE: NOW I KNOW HOW THEY FEEL IN RED CHINA
An hour after reading Big Dumb Guy's posts, they're hungry for more caps.
Whose map is it anyway?
If you don't like google's names for seas, oceans and countries go to Yahoo or Microsoft.
Google is getting ready to sell naming rights on its maps, as long as they are not obscene or insulting. These fees will go right to the bottom line.
few minutesday's tradeRe: So they priced the IPO about spot on then
There is a blog at The Guardian which purports to show the order book for FaceBook yesterday at 12:34pm ET.
<<"A screen grab of the order book for Facebook. The big yellow block represents bids for shares at $38.
Business Insider gets a look at the order book, sent in by Twitter user @Bourbon_Meyer.
"It strongly appears that there's a huge perma-bid at $38 on Facebook," Joe Weisenthal writes. "Check out the big mass of yellow on the left column... all those bids at $38.">>
I can't copy the chart, but if you go to the Guardian you will see how the underwriter's manipulation supported the $38 price, which uninitiated investors attribute to other investors like themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/18/facebook-ipo-stock-market-live?commentpage=1#post-area
few minutesday's tradeRe: Staying away, far away
Not necessarily so.
Let's say you were in at the start of a company like FB and were vested with shares now estimated to be worth a $ billion. You have a $ million dollars in cash and equivalents, but your billion dollars is tied up in stock that is not traded. Then your company announces an IPO.
Do you want to keep all your eggs in one basket or be prudent? Do you cash out half or do you let it all ride for another spin of the roulette wheel and maybe have $2 billion?
If you sell you should sell on IPO day as that's the day that you can sell into a market with more than enough buyers to get out without skewing the price. If you wait a couple months, the amount of stock you're selling will drive down the price and take weeks to get off.
What does the reasonable man do? I know what I'd do.
RE: NomNomNom
""International Space Station" they built which despite the profound sounding name, is basically just a big room floating in space."
Your commentary on Space coincided exactly with my thoughts, with the exception of the "big room floating in space. I, too, see a big room floating in space, but my big room is filled to the rafters with missiles of all sizes and shapes and warheads.
With the missile shield contracting around Russia, skuttlebutt is the Russian have rented a room in the Chinese Space Station to counter the negative impact of the US/NATO anti-ballistic missile system and the Chinese are helping them unload crates of rockets right now.
few minutesday's trade" However, through the mysteries of IPOing, it actually opened at $42,"
It is not a mystery.
It is a market order called "buy on opening". Today everybody who bought the opening is out 4 bucks a share. They don't care 'cause they know it's going to $90 by Halloween. And they're going to double up when it hits $34.
God Bless them everyone. They made Wall Street rich and powerful.
Re: How about "Arabian/Persian Gulf"?
"DUBAI (Reuters) - 'Saudi Arabia's thrust for a Gulf Union...'"
Eureka.
A Gulf Union.
So which do you think sounds better:
The Gulf Union Gulf or The Gulf of Gulf Union?
Re: Isn't this a song? I think this is a song.
Of course you think it is a song. Probably because it is a very famous song
Recorded cover versions
Recording artists and groups known to have covered this song include:
Edmundo Ros (1953)
Bing Crosby with Ella Fitzgerald (1953)
Frankie Vaughan (1954)
Caterina Valente (1954)
Renato Carosone
Darío Moreno (1954, in French)
Jacques Hélian et son Orchestre (1950s, in French as "Istamboul")
Lou Busch (as "Joe Fingers Carr & his Ragtime Band")
Ota Čermák (1959)
Santo & Johnny (1962)
Bruno & the Gladiators, instrumental surf rock band, though titled "Istanbul" (1963)[5][6]
Leo Addeo, (1965)
Bette Midler for the live album "Live At Last" (1977)
Harvard Din & Tonics have sung this song since the group's inception in 1979.
They Might Be Giants (1990)
Lee Press-on and the Nails (1998).
Belmont Playboys, Instrumental titled "Istanbul" (1999)
Ac Rock, Acapella version "Istanbul" (1999)
Oscar Aleman Instrumental version titled "Estambul" (2005)
Ska Cubano (2006)
PJ Harvey sampled the original for her song "Let England Shake" (2011).
Terrance Zdunich sings this song as Count Tarakan, the Badass Russian (2011).
And first by the Four Lads in 1953.
Anyway, thanks for the memory.
Isn't that a song? I think it's a song. :o)
"How about Exxon Gulf?"
No. Exxon merged with Mobil.
Gulf merged with Standard of California and is now Chevron
I know there's a connection here, but what?
Court sentences Crosskey on Wednesday May 16 to 12 months in the slammer for hacking facebook.
facebook's troubled initial public offering is Friday May 18; it needs all the positive spin it can get.
Just a weird coincidence, right?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Re: The Pentagon has the Solution
Well, of course. After they seize, confiscate and capture most of the oil on the planet, they will roll around in their armored personnel carriers until everyone else is dead. They will breed with female soldiers who have been accepted into the US Army because of their enticing bods and live in pleasant bases which have been purged of radioactivity. I forget the rest. See the end of "Dr. Strangelove."
Re: There are too many of us
"Peak oil is a crock."
This from a boffin who has had his dip stick in many a well.
"A price is dependent on what you are happy to sell it for."
Not so.
The price is dependent on what a buyer is willing to pay.
It's elementary, my dear Watson
The expression 'PIN number' is only used 3 times at the beginning of Simon Travaglia's monograph, but then the correct acronym, 'PIN', is used four times after that. Travaglia obviously put 'PIN number' at the beginning of his work to generate frivolity and bonhomie in the commentary of the old timers here.. Other commenters may have been in on the scheme.
According to some other posts, he has just returned after an absence and probably wants to be stood a pint or two.
I'd need to see the dust and particles on his luggage to say where he's been.
Re: Socialism is all about spending money that other people haven't even earned yet!
I didn't realize there was a difference between credit cards for capitalists and credit cards for socialists.
This post has been deleted by its author
If Breivik is only looking at 21 years...
these guys should be out by Halloween.
The contract was void ab initio
The buyer misrepresented who the real buyer was. The seller misrepresented who owned the copyright.
There was no contract. It was void from the get go.
The only difference between their two deceits, is that if the buyer made and sold maxipads, the real owner of the copyright would have settled for $55k.
RE: What matters is not what you think it's what was in the contract
MISREPRESENTATION
An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.
Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss. For example, assume that a real estate speculator owns swampland but advertises it as valuable commercially zoned land. This is a misrepresentation. If someone buys the land relying on the speculator's statement that it is commercially valuable, the buyer may sue the speculator for monetary losses resulting from the purchase.
Some misrepresentations are made by buyers as well. Such as not being an agent for another buyer.
To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener.
"And where the offense is, let the great ax fall"
Apple should always make "the lesser of 2 evils" argument.
Bad news for the tutti fruttis in this story.
"SHANGHAI (AP) — Apple Inc. risks losing the right to use the iPad trademark in China, a senior official suggested Tuesday(April 24), as a Chinese court was seeking to mediate a settlement between the technology giant and a local company challenging its use of the iPad name.
Yan Xiaohong, deputy director of the National Copyright Administration, told reporters in Beijing that the government regards Shenzhen Proview Technology as the rightful owner of the trademark for The popular tablet computers. His remarks could add to pressure on Apple to find a solution to the standoff.
Yan's comments followed news that the Guangdong High Court in southern China is seeking to arrange a settlement in the case. In late February, the court began hearing Apple's appeal of a lower court ruling that favored Proview in the trademark dispute"
"Oh the tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive," as LG is fond of saying.
Why not just say it was 'embiggened'?
"If the full moon rising in the East struck you as unusually large Saturday night, you would be right. It did loom larger than usual. Though it's hardly a scientific term, it is what's known as a "supermoon." (@NedPotterABC)
Supermoon? Couldn't that be confused with Rush dropping his pants and bending over?
Why not just say the moon was embiggened?
Re: "Then is doomsday near"
How can it be that unemployment will never be low again? The unemployed in large numbers are either dead, in prison or in the army. No satisfactory option there. If modern capitalism can not counter unemployment with all its technology and rocketing productivity, we must be under attack by diminishing returns and can only be delivered by some genius economist.
The oceans are dying, the climate has changed (maybe man is responsible. who cares?) our ground water is polluted, viruses and bacteria are becoming more drug resistant, we are about to run out of our most essential natural resource, the population growth will soon be a serial killer of the elderly.
Figuratively, a book George Orwell wrote over 60 years ago is becoming reality, like CGI in a billion dollar box office, 3D, action, sci-fi flick. Finally, the cold war is heating (freezing?) up again with the US/NATO encircling Russia with its missile shield defense. In February, it was reported, "Russian strategic nuclear submarines will resume routine extended patrols in international waters around the world in June 2012, Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said. “On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Vysotsky said at a meeting with naval personnel on Friday.
The annual number of extended patrols performed by Russian strategic nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered attack submarines has dropped from more than 230 in 1984 to less than 10 today."
Then there are the Iskander missile that the Russians are moving into the their western Kaliningrad district right next to Poland, which is hosting the NATO ABMs. Just last week the Russian General Staff announced it was reserving the right to make a preemptive strike against the NATO states hosting anti-missile missiles.
Have TPTB decided that this current 'weak recovery' needs a war like the Great Depression needed WW2?
It is the best of times for the 1% and soon will be the worst of times for everybody else.
Re: a fart by any other name ..
"You can put lipstick on a fart but it's still a fart."
Re: Yanks find loophole in laws of physics
Thank you.
You did miss a teeny bit.
If you run down the aisle of a train you are running in the opposite direction that the train is moving. So if the train is moving at the speed of light and you are running down the aisle you are moving slightly slower than the speed of light. You must start running up the aisle from the back of the train. When you reach the front you will have traveled faster than the speed of light. How cool is that?
Re: Yawnnnnn! Big deal.
I like the image of riding a tricycle up the corridor.
Re: I've got a delivery of 12 million Mexicans for you. Where should I put them?
No one is going to argue with you that illegal aliens in the US aren't a problem. Unfortunately, solving the problem for the US, creates one for Mexico. Probably destabilizes it. Their unemployment rate immediately goes up. The $200 billion a year in remittances goes down. Even if the US and Mexico split the cost of a wall (what a horrible image that invokes, what with East Berlin, the West Bank, etc.), it's an unaffordable burden for them. And having to police the wall to keep its citizens from leaving...
It's a huge hit on the Mexican economy. And when all these young Mexicans go home and there are no jobs, how many of them will be recruited into the drug cartels?
Re: I guess you've figured it out.
I confess I don't know how many of the Mexicans picking vegetables under a cloudless sky in the 90 degree heat of Southern California are legal and how many are illegal. And who else wants to do that work? Same for the gardening crews that come around every week to weed-wack, chainsaw, mow and leaf blow. Same with the garbage truck drivers. I suspect that a large minority are illegal. And I also have a feeling that it's not going to be easy to find replacements for them. And that might mean offering a higher wage to get replacements. And if you do that, you have to raise the wages of the legal aliens and, it goes with saying, you have to charge the customers more.
Two other considerations. I have seen a number that there are from 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. What is your estimate as to how long it would take to round them all up? And more to the point how many agents would be required to get them all? And how much would it cost the Treasury? You know those Republicans. They like to stick to a budget.
Finally, how will our good ally and trusted oil supplier, Mexico, feel about 12 - 20 million of their expatriates dumped all of a sudden back onto the Streets of Laredo, Tamaulipas? Especially if they're having an unemployment problem?
To cut to the chase, all those illegals were remitting to their wives and children and their frail, old madres 200 billion a year. Don't you think those funds were goosing the Mexican economy a little and will be sorely missed when Christmas bonuses come round? I do.
I don't think your plan will get an inch off the ground.
Re: Those who financially benefit rule
If the object here is creating jobs, it would be counterproductive to export all the illegal aliens in the US. To pull all the money the illegals spend every day out of the economy would cause a negative ripple through it.
"" According to UCLA research, immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year. ""
$150 billion of economic activity is only1% of a $15 trillion GDP, but to withdraw it would hurt the taxpaying land lords, and the owners of small and large stores, restaurants and mechanics, who in turn would spend less at the businesses they frequent.
If your argument is that those who financially rule do not want the aliens repatriated, you're absolutely correct.
Re: A favorite tune of mine
"Sag mir wo die Menschen sind.
Wo sind sie geblieben." (repeat)
Page: