Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why is Alibaba selling IPO in USA? (Score 1) 155

by tlhIngan (#47952567) Attached to: Why a Chinese Company Is the Biggest IPO Ever In the US

It's a Chinese company located in China, and most of its business and customers are in China. So why is it doing its IPO on the US stock market?

Shouldn't NYSE/Nazdaq disallow this? SEC and FTC have no jurisdiction in China or anywhere else outside the USA. If a chinese company listed on NYSE did fraudulent accounting or whatever, SEC can't do jack shit about it.

The whole thing seems like a clever scheme by Chinese companies and Goldman Sachs to sucker money out of U.S. investors.

Well first off, it should ring major alarm bells to any investor that Alibaba isn't doing it in their native country. I mean, either the Chinese government has rules against it, or the founders are basically trying to skirt Chinese law for whatever reason. That's a major red flag without even looking at the details of the arrangement.

Sorry, I don't buy any arguments about whether or not the Chinese government allows IPOs like that - Alibaba is the largest e-commerce site in the world doing practically Chinese-only business, and you can't figure out Chinese investment law? I don't think so.

Yes, I'm willing to call it "shady" from the get go. Either that or it's a house of cards in China that's about to collapse. I'm sorry, but if you're so business savvy to basically be the #1 marketplace in the world, out-doing Amazon, eBay and other sites combined, and you're doing the IPO in the US, there's something majority shady going on, perhaps even criminal (hiding from the Chinese government? Forget to hire the standard Communist party official?).

And oh, the SEC does have some power still - they can effectively suspend trading or even force delisting. Yes, it means current shareholders get screwed, but it prevents future shareholders from being screwed more. Hell, they can still levy fines to be paid by company owners (i.e., shareholders). It's the shareholders that are taking on a lot of risk because they can't bring the executives to bear.

Comment: Re:And they wonder why I block ads... (Score 1) 158

by tlhIngan (#47952527) Attached to: Google's Doubleclick Ad Servers Exposed Millions of Computers To Malware

As a side note, who the fuck thought that "AdMob" would be a good name for an advertising site? "We're going to MOB you with ADS!"

Fuck Off, AdMob.

Well, they were advertising for mobile devices - basically the iPhone and later Android devices.

(And Apple and Google were competing to acquire AdMob, but Google eventually paid more and likely paid Apple to create iAds to get around anti-trust).

Oh yeah, don't forget that Google's ad CDN is

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 0) 422

by i kan reed (#47949565) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I've never accused anyone of being a misogynists for disagreeing with me, and since you've clearly gone over my posts recently, I can tell you have no evidence of it.

You're strawmanning again.

And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible. Take you self-righteousness about self-righteousness and shove it up your ass, you hypocritical douchebag.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 422

by i kan reed (#47949421) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

"Horrible shit" being denialism over the level of sexual assault in the scientific field, and implicitly by suggesting that this completely spurious dismissal is somehow not completely fucking insane by the nature of your argument.

Now you can argue your statements are somehow completely divorced from the discussion's context. You can do that till the cow comes home and I won't be able to prove it, but I don't think you've remotely earned that level of good faith.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 3, Interesting) 304

by i kan reed (#47949231) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Netflix plays what their subscribers want to see

Then why do they have so many reality TV shows? Ugh.

No, but really, the set of inputs to what Netflix has is quite complicated. They love things with cheap per showing licenses, like off-the-air TV shows, unpopular movies, documentaries where the producers are more interested in pushing a message than making a profit, and a smattering of more popular "draw" shows/movies to bring in the popular audience.

And then there's the loss-leader shows trying to get people to start watching the series as it comes out, either on pay services or with commercials.

And then there's the various "taste profiles" of the people who are netflix subscribers, and what's both cheap and good within that frame.

There's some pitiable accountants in the company who's responsible for balancing all those factors, while making a profit.

Reducing all that to "giving the people what they want" is a little unpragmatic.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score -1) 422

by i kan reed (#47949077) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

The fuck is wrong with you? People are allowed to have stupid opinions. That's not the same as allowing sexual assault, in any way shape or form.

Are you brain dead? There has to be a little life in your mind that sees actual harm as separate and distinct from dumb opinions. Right?

People thinking stupid things is not "an issue". Holy christ are you dense as fuck.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 0) 422

by i kan reed (#47948639) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

You're right; feminists don't in general, push for only that, because legalistic bias isn't the only kind that's harming people. You can see object evidence of how systemic bias hurts women Or objective evidence that certain kinds of cultural media measurably cause those biases. Standing against that, in spite of having nothing to do with the law, is morally justified, and even necessary.

But I'm sure you meant that what they we want is some kinda imagined matriarchy, where special rights are reserved for one half the population. Which is dumb. And while people with all sorts of self-labels say all sorts of dumb things, it is not a suggestion made by anywhere near a large percentage of feminists.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 5, Informative) 304

by i kan reed (#47948537) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

To clarify, in this case they claim that netflix doesn't do enough to encourage the production and consumption of Canadian entertainment, a requirement they place on other distributors.

So they're, in theory, doing exactly what you say, just in less harsh terms. They want to ensure the continued interest of Canadian producers, and not American.

And they're using arbitrary leverage like demanding subscriber lists to push netflix to obey. It's not neat or nice. But they're kinda being upfront that it's just leverage not genuine interest in the records.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.