This will be great!! Tens of millions of Bangladeshis flee the coast and flood inland, fomenting civil unrest and violence. Millions more flee low-lying areas of India, the world's second most populous country. Hoards of people on the move, crossing borders, looking for food and clean water, in the middle of two giant hostile nuclear states -- Pakistan and India.
agreed on the eod sell off. today, the easy money has been made on the back of the street pump piece.
pip -- you made some fair points on your last post on the other ymb (the threas was just gettting too long). I'm a trader, and not in love or hate with the stock... just like pushing your buttons -- you're one of the few "bears" with well though out views.
Bangledesh -- does not boarder Pakistan.
from a 2007 report - "In Bangladesh land degradation occurs due to both natural and human activities. Poor land management is a leading contributor to the erosional problems in the region. Things such as excessive deforestation and poor agricultural practices have led to high susceptibility to degradation. As the soil becomes less stable it is more likely to be carried away due to events such as floods and high intensity rainfall. Sustainable human policies are necessary in these situations to slow soil loss and reduce the potential of future hazards." -- Atiq Rahman seem to want to find someone outside of his leadership to blame.
that is why it was a quick in and out for me... miss numbers 25% haircut over the next couple of day is what the chart says, hits number maybe .15-.25 upside, beats numbers could see 20% upside... the chart says risk/reward is not here for a swing trade, but as a day trade.. I did OK today.
pip, we will just have to disagree.. as for good faith, you know the political enviroment has changed and retroactive punishments have been harsh on what in the past would have been just a boys being boys approach.
better go look at the charts today.. it is not oversold by any means. If anything the run the past few days has the pps at toppy levels on short term indicators.
pip, "the court looks at one thing, who filed first!" that is not the whole truth and if you have been to court defending patents, you know that. If one can prove theft of trade secrets (hard to do) and concurently get a favorable USPTO ruling.. the law is not as clear cut as you try and make it out to be.
How do you address the cost of the bond issue and potentially shutting down google's server farms as the driveing reason NLST could never afford to try and get an injunction?
Pip, now that there is a USPTO ruling which in most likehood will be challanged, harm -- they can reasonabily prove now. The problem comes down to the bond cost to get an injunction... what is the cost of the infrastrucure google has, what would be the finiancial cost of shutting down googles servers? that is the bond cost.... maybe apple or ge could afford the cost but the little guy-- not a chance. it is not about the reasons for an injunction now (there is clear evidence NLST could ask for one) it is about the cost in doing so. Up until the USPTO ruling the courts would never even entertained a motion to injunct google..
I was thinking the same thing yetti.... I must have different glasses on than pip.. we are seeing the world in different lights in regards to injunctions.
"Climate policy may be informed by a consideration of a diverse array of risks and uncertainties, some of which are difficult to measure, notably events that are of low probability but which would have a significant impact if they occur." -- polittical fearmongering
read the AR5 reference material on the UN site and the pfd's below that.
"Sustainable development and equity provide a basis for assessing climate policies and highlight the need for addressing the risks of climate change.3 Limiting the effects of climate change is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication. At the same time, some mitigation efforts could undermine action
on the right to promote sustainable development, and on the achievement of poverty eradication and equity. Consequently,a comprehensive assessment of climate policies involves going beyond a focus on mitigation and adaptation policies alone to examine development pathways more broadly, along with their determinants"
if the following statement does not show there is a political slant --"Limiting the effects of climate change is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication." nothing will convince you other wise.
seems like most of the gains are from software... add in NLST hardware and the two could be a force.. just day dreaming --- as I've posted before, I know nothing about tech... I can turn the power on most devices but that is about is..
The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be used only to preserve the existing state of things between the parties. Generally, courts have set forth four requirements for granting a preliminary injunction:
The plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case (i.e., that the patent in issue is valid and infringed). [ no USPTO decision ]
The plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not issued. [NLST can recoup fees and fines]
The threatened harm to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may inflict on the defendant.[one can add a variety of reaasons here]
The injunction will serve the public interest. [google search usage]
[imo rationals] please not the word "extraordinary" related to getting an injunction.......
Simple answer 1)"If a preliminary injunction is issued, the plaintiff will nearly always have to post a bond for securing any costs or damages that the defendant will suffer if the preliminary injunction is later found to be improperly granted. This gives the defendant some assurance that if something arises after the preliminary injunction is issued, such as, for example, a heretofore unknown prior-art reference that clearly invalidates the patent, the defendant's costs and damages for ceasing the manufacture and sale of the product can be recovered from the proceeds of the bond. The amount of the bond depends on the circumstances of the case and is left to the court's discretion. Many times, the plaintiff will use the services of a bail bondsperson or insurance company to post the bond, with the plaintiff paying a percentage (such as ten percent) of the amount of the bond to these entities. The bond requirement must be kept in mind as the cost of the bond (or bailbondsperson/insurer) may be prohibitive." - [imo, nlst did not have the cash on hand or the ability to cover carring cost at the time]
2) one of the keys need to get the injunction is "selling"
3) google could have argued the rarely used public welfare clause in stoping the injunction -- weak but due to how interlaced google searchs are to society... it could have worked.