News Stories

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Vexx

"disingenuous" is the nicest word one could use.... basically, these roaches are trying to slip all the regressivity they can into laws and hope there aren't enough spotlights to catch them all. Most *reasonable* people, conservative or liberal, don't want to institute a violence-ordained theocracy that mocks the rule-of-law. There are plenty of examples of that in the world already.

Yeah, it's sickening. I think the people that constructed this, with its questionable wording and lack of clarity, have the hope that it can lead to "vigilante justice" that can go unpunished, due to loop holes in the legal system. If this is the case, those people that intend these things, they are immoral, and to a large degree.

Another thing that really pisses me off is that other red states will probably copy this plan. If South Dakota puts language in the bill that protects abortion clinic workers, then great, but what if some states make similar bills and then forgo the needed clarity?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Most *reasonable* people, conservative or liberal, don't want to institute a violence-ordained theocracy that mocks the rule-of-law. There are plenty of examples of that in the world already.

Is it crazy to think than those than would want to '' institute a violence-ordained theocracy that mocks the rule-of-law'' would be the first to want to bomb Iran... which is probably the best example of what they would want for their own country ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

South Dakota may legalize the killing of abortion providers. Read for details. I do advise all to read the whole article if they want to respond to this.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-providers.php

You know, I'm a mix of conservative and liberal, and might be a bit more conservative, and my dad is pretty darn conservative, so no one be too offended or anything when I say WTF to the ultra conservative people in America. Sometimes, they just...gah. They are extremists (and I'm only talking about the ultra conservatives, and less so of, the very conservative people).

I thought one of the Amendments included a right to protect personal freedom in any way, so why isn't it legal for the abortion providers to shoot the people trying to kill them?

You gotta love how law is often twisted for personal gains. Ironic that law is an instrument to protect people rather than to kill.

[flying ^]

while Tokyo has Gundam, check out what Detroit is about to have!

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/16/r...-fully-funded/

[Tsuyoshi]

Looks like people will eventually be able to make music instruments on a whim.

Now I, for one, aren't exactly sure about the implications to this new type of technology. One thing I am certain of is that many, many people will lose their jobs if this technology is real (as you might have guessed, I have trouble actually believing in this). Secondly, how is it even possible to literally re-create complex designs and mechanisms like air-craft parts musical instruments with glue and laser beams?

Lastly, I don't like this type of technology because it discards the idea of being able to produce something with your own hands with care. Sure, you can make an argument for being creative or innovative if you can work on a computer to make anything you like, but you're limited to what is possible to a computer, and human imagination goes far beyond that. Making things from a computer is to me much too disconnected and dispassionate. But that's just me.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Looks like people will eventually be able to make music instruments on a whim.

Now I, for one, aren't exactly sure about the implications to this new type of technology. One thing I am certain of is that many, many people will lose their jobs if this technology is real (as you might have guessed, I have trouble actually believing in this). Secondly, how is it even possible to literally re-create complex designs and mechanisms like air-craft parts musical instruments with glue and laser beams?

Lastly, I don't like this type of technology because it discards the idea of being able to produce something with your own hands with care. Sure, you can make an argument for being creative or innovative if you can work on a computer to make anything you like, but you're limited to what is possible to a computer, and human imagination goes far beyond that. Making things from a computer is to me much too disconnected and dispassionate. But that's just me.

This technology is real. It is also extremely expensive. And you can choose only one "building" material in a printer. I suppose there is not such a high demand for metal or plastic violins...
It is most often used in prototyping (where I work, I've seen prototype PLCs that come in casings that were printed - typically it doesn't look as smooth as the final product, its like pixelation but in 3D) and machine tool development (making masters that are used to create thousands of copies in a manufacturing process). For "artistic" work another CNC technology is more widely used, thats milling. There are other things too like CNC welding and so on...

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Looks like people will eventually be able to make music instruments on a whim.

Now I, for one, aren't exactly sure about the implications to this new type of technology. One thing I am certain of is that many, many people will lose their jobs if this technology is real (as you might have guessed, I have trouble actually believing in this). Secondly, how is it even possible to literally re-create complex designs and mechanisms like air-craft parts musical instruments with glue and laser beams?

Lastly, I don't like this type of technology because it discards the idea of being able to produce something with your own hands with care. Sure, you can make an argument for being creative or innovative if you can work on a computer to make anything you like, but you're limited to what is possible to a computer, and human imagination goes far beyond that. Making things from a computer is to me much too disconnected and dispassionate. But that's just me.

Give it a few more years (or decades, depending on the funding). The technology is still in its infancy (as mentioned before), and I don't see it as a threat now.

[ganbaru]

As Mideast seethes, three dead in Bahrain bloodshed
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71F41K20110217

[MrTerrorist]

The final Jeopardy match featuring IBM's Supercomputer Watson.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLZ5VIq_Uvo

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY8NrMVvMDM

Spoiler for Guess who won?:

IBM's Watson supercomputer crowned Jeopardy king

Hail to our new Computer Overlord!

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

The final Jeopardy match featuring IBM's Supercomputer Watson.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLZ5VIq_Uvo

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY8NrMVvMDM

Spoiler for Guess who won?:

IBM's Watson supercomputer crowned Jeopardy king

Hail to our new Computer Overlord!

Spoiler:

I welcome our new Silicon Overlord.

[ganbaru]

Ottawa steps up own cyber security measures
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1911336/
It's always after something happen than they tend to act...

[SaintessHeart]

Here is something interesting from MKW....

Here comes the dot-com boom 2.0

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Facebook. Twitter. LinkedIn. Zynga. Groupon. LivingSocial.

Will those be the Google Inc. (GOOG 625.26, +1.04, +0.17%) , eBay Inc. (EBAY 34.69, +0.23, +0.67%) and Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN 187.76, +1.14, +0.61%) of the next big wave of Internet companies going public, which appears to be happening as we speak?

One of my 10 surefire predictions for 2011 was that this year would be the biggest for Internet initial public offerings since the first dot-com boom. It’s only mid-February, but barring a sudden market selloff, you can take that one to the bank. Read Gold’s 10 surefire predictions for 2011 on MoneyShow.com.

Amid some media hand-wringing about a new dot-com bubble, IPO activity is picking up nicely; some Internet companies that already have gone public have done very well; this new wave of dot-com debutantes appears to be profitable (no pets.com here), and there’s great investor interest that can lure some of the trillions of dollars in cash that’s been sitting on the sidelines.

If you think this rally has been nothing but a government-induced bubble, you’ll no doubt see this as yet another sign of a market gone mad. But if you believe the bull market has a way to go, these new issues may add fuel to the market’s fire and could be a good place to put a small part of your money, and I’ll tell you how later. Read Gold’s commentary on why there may be lots more life in this bull market on MoneyShow.com.

But the boom is definitely on. According to Renaissance Capital, a Greenwich, Conn.-based investment firm specializing in IPOs, proceeds from global IPOs hit $176.1 billion last year, more than double the volume of either 2008 or 2009.

So far in 2011, $10.7 billion in IPOs have come to market, a 36.1% jump from the same time last year. And most striking, U.S. markets are setting the pace.

“In 2010, Hong Kong had half the global [IPO] market. Our share was 20%,” said Kathleen Smith, a principal at Renaissance. “So far [in 2011,] our share is 55%,” and Hong Kong has had no IPOs.

And although some of the stocks going public here are foreign companies with American Depositary Receipts, many are U.S.-based firms.

Of course, everybody’s watching the new dot.com stars, most of which are still private, but probably won’t be for long.

If there’s a bubble, said Smith, “it’s certainly in the pre-IPO market. There’s more hype than I’ve ever seen on these companies before they’ve filed.” The huge scarcity of privately traded shares may be a big contributor to that.

So far this year, we’ve seen Demand Media (DMD 21.48, +0.42, +1.99%) complete an offering, while Internet radio company Pandora Media and business-networking site LinkedIn already have filed prospectuses.

The pre-IPO valuations on some of these are jaw-dropping. Online coupon purveyor Groupon famously turned down $6 billion from Google and is now supposedly worth $15 billion. Internet game site Zynga is valued at $7 billion to $9 billion, social-messaging service Twitter at more than $8 billion, while LinkedIn may be worth $2 billion or more.

Facebook, as we know, recently secured a new round of financing from Goldman Sachs Group (GS 167.16, -1.65, -0.98%) and the Russian company Digital Sky Technologies that valued the social-media juggernaut at $50 billion.

Those numbers sound pretty outrageous, given the slim profits most of these firms have posted so far. But Smith points out that these companies will be profitable by the time of their IPOs — unlike many that went public during the dot-com bubble — and when they publish their prospectuses, investors will better assess their correct valuations.

Also, some Internet IPOs already have done quite well. Ancestry.com Inc. (ACOM 34.39, -3.73, -9.78%) is up 137.5% from the close of its first day’s trading in November 2009. OpenTable Inc. (OPEN 92.89, -0.03, -0.03%) has soared 224% since May of that year, while Financial Engines Inc. (FNGN 26.17, -0.13, -0.49%) is up 52.5% in its first year as a public company.

And Smith said the first-day “pop” of IPOs has averaged 10%, pretty much in line with historical averages and way below the madness of the dot-com days.

That could change quickly when the big-name IPOs hit the market. Smith cautions investors not to buy at the IPO (most of us couldn’t even get in to these offerings, which are reserved for big institutions and the most well-heeled clients of the underwriting firms), but to wait for the end of the trading day or buy in the after-market over the ensuing weeks.

She says investors should look for four things:

•Strong barriers to entry — something proprietary that protects the company from competitors

•A reasonable valuation based on earnings and cash flow

•Good governance — a truly independent board of directors

•Whether the company is in the right sector of the market

In the 1990s, too many investors were burned by hot Internet stocks that flared up like supernovas and then fizzled. So, a mutual fund or ETF tracking these stocks may be the way to go — and I would allocate only 2% to 5% of your total portfolio to it.

The Renaissance Global IPO Plus Aftermarket Fund (IPOSX 13.67, +0.05, +0.37%) buys selected IPOs at the close of their first day of trading and sells them after two years. Unfortunately, it has a pretty high expense ratio (2.5%) and trails the Nasdaq Composite Index (COMP 2,832, +6.02, +0.21%) over the last two and five years.

The FirstTrust U.S. IPO Index Fund (FPX 25.21, +0.08, +0.32%) ETF tracks the IPOX 100 U.S. index, investing in stocks seven days after their IPO and selling after 1,000 days. It has outperformed the Nasdaq handily over the past two years, but trails badly over the past five. Its expense ratio is 0.6%, relatively high for an ETF.

You also can find broader mutual funds that invest in IPOs, although Russel Kinnel, director of mutual fund research at Morningstar, doesn’t recommend them.

“I wouldn’t go out of my way to buy a fund likely to get into IPOs,” he said. “IPOs historically haven’t been great performers,…so buying at the offering price hasn’t been that great an investing strategy.”

“Even if you thought they were,’” he continued, “1. you don’t know which funds will buy [them], and 2. they may not be too big a piece of the fund.”

All true, but there are several clues.

Morningstar prepared a list of the funds with the largest holdings in Google stock around the time of its 2004 IPO (although we don’t know whether these funds actually bought in at the IPO). See the chart for the to 10, I’ve stripped out index funds.

According to Morningstar, Fidelity Growth Company (FDGRX 90.13, +0.20, +0.22%) owned Google near its IPO and recently was among the biggest holders of Open Table. T. Rowe Price New Horizons (PRNHX 35.99, +0.12, +0.34%) had a top-10 stake in Open Table and Financial Engines, while Lord Abbett Developing Growth A (LAGWX 23.36, +0.18, +0.78%) recently owned Open Table, Financial Engines, and Ancestry.com.

The Lord Abbett and T. Rowe Price funds have set the pace recently, but only Fidelity Growth Company (which I own in my retirement account) beat the Nasdaq over the past five years. All these funds have expense ratios of around 1%.

Another possibility: You can buy the FirstTrust ETF or one of these funds plus your favorite IPO stock (after reading the prospectus thoroughly, of course) — but watch the market like a hawk and keep your exposure below 5% of your holdings.

Vigilance and diversification are the best defense against big losses. Dot-com boom 2.0 looks very promising, but who really wants to get fooled again?

When actually :

It’s not a bubble, people; It’s a pyramid scheme

Mark Cuban knows a thing or two about bubbles, having profited handsomely from an earlier Internet boom. But ask him if we’re seeing Bubble 2.0 and he’ll give you a different theory.

“It’s almost the 2011 version of a private equity chain letter,” said Cuban, who sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo in 1999 for $5.7 billion and went on to buy the the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.

“Remember the old chain letter, where you put up some money, then you got other people to put up some money, and you gave it to the people who were in the deal before you? That’s what’s happening today,” said Cuban. “The early (VCs) are getting the new (VCs) to invest enough money at high enough valuations that they get most, if not all of their money back. Then the next round (sees) someone else invest more money at a higher valuation, returning cash to the last two rounds of investors. By the time you get to the last (VC) standing, those last few rounds hope they can get a return from the public markets. That may be very tough. But the only players really on the hook are the guys from the last rounds. Just like in a chain letter.”

It’s a valid point. As certain Internet company valuations reach astronomic new heights, it’s easy to conclude that Silicon Valley has spawned another giant bubble–one that will eventually bounce its way onto the public market and soak investors. But unlike the dot.com mania of a decade ago, today’s soaring valuations don’t involve hundreds of companies and thousands of retail investors. They center on a select group of wealthy VCs chasing after a comparatively small number of very richly valued tech companies–most of which are in Silicon Valley.

Over the last three months alone, Facebook’s roughly $33 billion valuation has roughly doubled, to an estimated $60 billion. Zynga’s reported valuation has jumped to upwards of $9 billion from $4 billion last May. And both pale in comparison to Twitter, which generated an estimated $150 million in revenue in 2010 yet has reportedly received overtures that peg its worth at between $8 billion and $10 billion. (Just two months ago, when Kleiner Perkins led a $200 million investment in Twitter, its valuation was $3.7 billion.)

Fueling the fire are firms like Andreessen Horowitz, which last week sunk $80 million into secondary shares of Twitter, and Kleiner Perkins, which this week threw $38 million at Facebook shareholders to (finally) add the company to its portfolio. But they’re certainly not alone. According to the secondary shares marketplace SecondMarket, VCs have represented the majority of SecondMarket’s buyers since the third quarter of 2010 and they accounted for more than 40 percent of its transactions in the fourth quarter.

Maybe the VCs truly believe that Facebook, Twitter, Groupon and Zynga are on the cusp of becoming among the most valuable companies in the world. But it may also be true that they believe they can sell their shares to a greater fool. (JPMorgan’s planned social media fund jumps to mind.)

Either way, when the chain ultimately ends, few, including Cuban, will feel terribly sorry for those left holding empty envelopes.

“When the market has a correction, stock prices will correct dramatically, and that sound you’ll hear from the Valley?” said Cuban. “(It) will be of a fund manager screaming, ‘S***!’ as he turns out the light on his fund.”

[ganbaru]

Libyan troops in Benghazi after overnight protest
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G0A620110218

[MrTerrorist]

US President Barack Obama has met Silicon Valley bosses, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg

Why do i get the feeling that Fox News is going to twist this story and claim "Silicon Valley is conspiring with the President and they must be stop."?

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The thing is, when it's confident in an answer, it should beat a human to buzz in first 100% of the time. A computer should have much faster reaction times. Note that confident doesn't mean actually right though.

IBM was required to build a mechanical "finger" for Watson so it had to press the buzzer when answering like the human contestants. Also the buzzers are locked out until Alex finishes reading the question (well, answer really). Some of Watson's speed had to do with it being a computer, but the times when it was "puzzled" were highly instructive. It seemed to me that it did best on questions where factual knowledge was important, like authors' names, book titles, etc. It was, not surprisingly, less effective when the question relied on puns or other contextual information.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Give it a few more years (or decades, depending on the funding). The technology is still in its infancy (as mentioned before), and I don't see it as a threat now.

I've been watching 3D printing for a couple of years now, and the pace of technological development has been quite rapid. If the technology becomes mature, it's going to prove interesting for intellectual property litigation. Eventually what will matter is not the physical object itself, but the algorithms for its creation. Copyrights, rather than patents, may end up playing the bigger role when it comes to protection of inventions.

[dredmorte]

Fabbers will make Intellectual Property 100% obsolete, internet having made it partially obsolete.

Either IP stays and fabbers develop slowly, or IP dies and we see 2nd Industrial Revolution. That's my prediction.

It'll be great. Instead of people getting together to make freeware programs, people will get together to build all kinds of objects. Shit man, that would be like libertarianism and communism mixed together? Mindfuck

[AnimeFan188]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I've been watching 3D printing for a couple of years now, and the pace of technological development has been quite rapid. If the technology becomes mature, it's going to prove interesting for intellectual property litigation. Eventually what will matter is not the physical object itself, but the algorithms for its creation. Copyrights, rather than patents, may end up playing the bigger role when it comes to protection of inventions.

3D printing can be used for more than musical instruments and other small, non-organic
items:


3D Bio-printer to create arteries and organs:

http://www.gizmag.com/3d-bio-printer/13609/


JOURNAL: "Printing" Houses:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...g-houses-.html

[Vexx]

The stone knives and bearskins version of replicators and holodecks... check back in a hundred years.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The stone knives and bearskins version of replicators and holodecks... check back in a hundred years.

Stone knives and bearskins eventually advanced into togas and spathas. Not much of a difference other than materials used.

Except that togas included a subtle "pull belt in case of orgy" tag to it.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The stone knives and bearskins version of replicators and holodecks... check back in a hundred years.

Just hopping than Scot Adams was wrong about what would happen because of holodecks...