If the stock moves significantly up after the IPO, this means that the company did not sell enough stock.

Instead, if the price remains flat, or even goes down, this says that the IPO was priced perfectly: all the revenue from the IPO goes to the company and/or the insiders selling the shares, rather than the IPO bank backer's insiders who got the inside track on the "hot IPO"

We should have all IPOs be like this IPO.

I'm not going to give you a yes or no, because I don't have to. This is Slashdot, not a grand jury. And, because the answer is more nuanced.

Although Steve is gone, Apple is continuing everything that both Richard and I didn't like about their business. So, Steve's malign influence on people's computing continues unabated.

Like I said, I could have written it better than Richard, because Richard has problems with empathy. Had I written it, it would have been more graceful.

Steve also had no shortage of head problems. What an idiot for not retiring when he was first diagnosed - but I guess the public Steve Jobs was the only Steve Jobs there was, and he couldn't stop. Besides his foolish continuance of work, an eating disorder contributed to his demise. He did end up becoming the richest guy in the graveyard.

I was also offended by the New Yorker cover, and I think Richard was too.

Nobody should be surprised that there was much that is negative about Steve. I do oppose Apple's way of business, which is high on DRM and control of the user. Were I writing the same piece, I think I could have said it better than Richard.

I think the saddest part is that Dennis Ritchie, who really invented the stuff of our modern world, died around the same time and in comparison to Steve, was unlamented.

Of course I worked with Steve for 12 years, and despite his reputation he was always nice to me - even the time I put him on the spot about something in front of the entire Pixar staff.

So, I was offended by those comments, too.

I don't think adultery is directly illegal anywhere.

See Article 134 of the United States Military Code of Justice. Military officers are still tried and prosecuted for adultery - there have been cases in the last few years.

Whether you agree with him or not, I think that everyone can acknowledge that RMS has devoted his entire life to something that has done many people very much good.

So, (and this is not the first time) it never ceases to amaze me that the response of some contingent of the Slashdot audience is to dig through his blog and use the worst two comments you can find to smear dirt upon him. He's a libertarian, and yes, if you take Libertarainism to its logical extreme, you might indeed believe that anything that doesn't hurt someone else should be legal. Nobody is accusing him of performing these acts, only of believing that freedom really means all possible freedom.

Like RMS, I'm getting old, and travel a lot to do talks. If I fall ill or get hit by a car, I hope you turkeys never find out.

1 however is really problematic.

At least the Berkeley agreement, from what I understand, is basically "Google won't datamine the EMAIL/Documents while students are still students and for 6 months afterwords, and during that time the web interface doesn't display adds".

This does NOTHING to prevent the rest of Google's horribly intrusive datamining and associating that information with student identities when the students use the Gmail web interface.

My UCSD outsourced-to-google email actually has the standard Google privacy policy on it!

Normally, Google is the service provider. Which means if they get a warrant, or a subpoena, it goes to Google, and Google can answer it however they want or are required to. For example, with some warrants, Google would be forbidden from notifying the university about the warrant, and even when Google can, they are an intermediary that gets in the way.

By making Google a school official, such warrants and subpoenas go DIRECTLY to the University's attorneys. Berkeley's outsourced-to-google mail system has the same basic language from what I understand.

Its unethical for the government to require that spammers not spam you once they get your email address. Welcome to the Paul Libertarian Randite Paradise...

Actually, it doesn't. Because I was assuming subsidized vs subsidized price, and a marginal cost of a smartphone being a $35/month after tax for the data plan (I'm assuming the person would still have a cellphone, just not a SMART phone).

In that case, the "free" phone is $840 over the contract period, but the "$200" iPhone 4S is $1040.