I wonder the same sorts of things myself. I sense that a good portion of this 'likes' business is actually a very subtle but sophisticated game of influence deployed by marketers. I suspect a few things are at play when a network encourages 'likes' for a TV show that hasn't aired:

1. It's a form of early market research. 'Likes' are probably as good a metric as any for predicting the size of the initial audience, which in turn helps the network fine tune what they can charge advertisers at the outset.
2. It drives popularity, albeit based on false pretenses: Once the show starts airing, and you hit the site to learn more about it and see all of those 'likes', you'll get a feeling that it's more popular than say a similar show where the network didn't troll for 'likes' prior to its initial air date. This is especially important when the network is trying to influence those of us (e.g. teenagers, pre-teens) who consider popularity to be of significant importance.
3. On social networks, when you 'like' something, it lets your connections know. Getting people to be aware of something is of course half the battle with marketing, not to mention that if you are considered an important influencer among your peers, then you're providing your implicit 'thumbs up'.
4. I suspect there's also a sort of cognitive dissonance play going on. If you 'like' something on Facebook, I suspect you're also more likely to engage with it in the future simply because of that 'like', and irrespective of all other factors.

Disregard above, I misread your comment. Yes, that's a potential problem. I'm guessing that there is some sort of specific engagement required on the part of the company, otherwise I could go around claiming I'm going to buy Chevron and then accuse their execs of insider trading...

Cancel existing orders and don't schedule new company stock trades as soon as you have become an insider either by your own doing or by an external party?

YOU CAN'T TRADE STOCK IN A COMPANY WHEN YOU HAVE PRIVILEGED NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT COULD MATERIALLY AFFECT THE STOCK PRICE IF THE PUBLIC KNEW ABOUT IT. Anyone who works for a public company knows this. You'd think the CEO would have a particular interest in staying on the right side of insider trading laws, but he was sloppy while the Feds were watching and they nabbed him for it. No conspiracy theories needed to explain his utter stupidity.

He got 10 years for insider trading. Nice try though.

Why do I get the feeling this whole thing is like a big billionaire's version of SimCity for him? I wonder what "natural" disasters he has in store?

The reason you can tell the difference between looking outside and your monitor has more to do with your monitor's limited color gamut, dynamic range and contrast ratio than pixel density. Beyond a certain density, you need a much bigger screen to appreciate the extra pixels.

And my eyes can barely make out the width of a pixel as it is. What is it going to do for me if you increase pixel density such that pixel are now a quarter the size they are now? Give us 40" or more, and it might start to get interesting, but then you're constantly bending your neck to read what's on different parts of the screen.

Anyone remember that phone? That's the one where Blackberry (RIM) decided to get in on the touchscreen craze by building a phone that tried to bridge the gap for users who preferred physical keyboards. In response to physical keyboard users who clamored for tactile feedback, they made the whole screen click when you pressed hard enough.

At the time, I thought to myself, "no, you idiots, an entire screen that clicks doesn't provide the same tactile feedback as individually raised keys that click under your fingers. What were you guys thinking when you came up with this partial solution to the wrong problem?"

This time around, I'm thinking to myself (and the Slashdot community), "no, you idiots, adding a start icon to the desktop so that users can get to Metro doesn't address the underlying problem that Metro is not appropriate on non-touchscreen desktop PCs. What were you guys thinking when you came up with this partial solution to the wrong problem?"

If this was a previous generation where AMD was actually still competitive, Titan would have been the high end part, and it would have cost $500 instead of $1000. The part known as GTX 780 would have been a slightly depopulated part capable of 90% the performance for a 20% savings or so and the rest of the line would have fallen under those two. Since AMD is no longer really a threat in the high-end GPU space, Nvidia can literally maintain the MSRPs of the old parts as if the new parts are merely higher performing extensions of the previous generation without any downward pricing pressure on anything.

Well evidently if he's lamenting not going with his gut, he's implying that there *was* a viable path to producing mobile chips and they *chose* not to risk their desktop/server business in pursuit of it.

What this story tells me is that while your gut instinct may or may not be offering you the best path forward, you owe it to yourself as a business leader to figure out why your gut contradicts the data. If all you do is make logical decisions based on easily available data, then you can probably be replaced by a simple algorithm that can make more reliable decisions than you anyway.

In this case, Otellini had data in front of him, but his gut instinct contradicted the data-driven path forward. He ignored it and moved on, convinced that it was safer (?) to be on the side of the data. But the data led him astray. Why?

Because he had partial data, data that was probably focused on previous mobile computing entries and little on Apple's recent design successes, superior user experiences and marketing capabilities. If he'd realized his gut was really signalling that they needed more and different kinds of data, I suspect Intel would have gone down a different path.

Really? The version number thing again? Hasn't that been played out yet? Incidentally, 3.0 is not even close to when they moved to a rapid release cycle.

...but I can pretty much guess where this is going. If you look at the massive parallelization improvements we've witnessed among supercomputers over the past couple decades, you can predict that at some point, most of the low hanging fruit would eventually be picked at which point the underlying latency between interconnects would start to become a limiting factor. Couple that with the fact that there's been a complete lack of significant performance improvement in desktop/server CPU space in say the past 5 years and you can predict that it wouldn't be long before we'd see a leveling off of the supercomputer performance curve.