You assume that lowering the price will result in the same amount of sales. In reality lowering price usually increases sales as demand and supply match again after changes. Selling 200 blades at 30BTC is more than 100 blades at 50BTC. Another point here is better ROI for buyers, as they are more likely to buy more hardware in the future if they manage to make some BTC. At current prices it's very likely some buyers may not get back their investment which will be disappointing for them and will kill the desire to buy more hardware in the future.

But it's not necessary to try to predict the ability of competitors to deliver products; it's sufficient to gauge whether or not we think we would make more money by lowering prices at current market conditions, and if we think that's the case, we should do it.

That is a subtlety I disagree with. In order for AM to always be the leader, they actually need to always lower prices at least a couple weeks BEFORE their competitors sell a competitive offering.

A lot of the classification of securities is inaccurate or inexact.

In many cases securities don't meet the traditional definitions of ANY of fund, stock or bond.

Pass-throughs are funds.  A share in an ASIC-MINER pass-through is NOT a share in ASIC-MINER, it's a unit in a fund holding assets.  That those assets happen to be stocks doesn't make units in the pass-through stocks themselves.  If they were stocks then they'd be stocks representing ownership of ASICMINER-PT NOT stocks representing ownership of ASIC-MINER.  The distinction is largely technical but significant - specifically for any pass-through the question to consider (when determining whether it is a fund or a stock) is this:

Does the owner of the underlying asset recognise shares in the pass-through as representing ownership of the underlying asset?  It can only be a stock (represetning ownership of the underlying asset) if the answer to that is yes - and the answer to that as a general question is always going to be no.  All pass-throughs should be funds - unless run by the issuer of the underlying asset (when they MAY be stocks but not necessarily so).

With bonds the difference is a bit less technical and a bit more practical.  Bonds in general have a fixed face value.  So listing something as a bond immediately gives the impression (to anyone familiar with RL bonds) that an investment in them pretty much guarantees no loss of capital over the life of the bond (paying dividends cannot reduce face value).  Where that isn't the case then listing as a bond is inaccurate and misleading.  That, I assume, is why some are voting no to new listings that claim to be bonds when they aren't.  Whilst I personally strongly disagree with listing anything as a bond that doesn't have a fixed (and maintained) face value, I would NOT personally vote against listing such a security if everything else were fine with it.  It's possibly one of the few areas where my views are more lenient than those of some moderators.  The reason I'd personally pass them is because the term 'bond' has become so devalued in the BTC community as to be near meaningless - so the damage risked by allowing the term to further be used to misrepresent more securities is minimal (the damage having already been done).

what hardware can i get in hand now?

I think they are planning their exit strategy anybody agree?

No. Should be released soon. Usually it should be out within the first 2 weeks of the month. No exact schedule tho.

New exchange shutdowns just today: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-feds-just-seized-another-bitcoin-site-2013-6

According to this post (July 3, 2012) there are three founders:

My assumption is that having three founders means that the business would be able to continue even in the absence of a single person. Whether or not that satisfies an arbitrary person's request for an explicitly stated "bus factor" is up to them, I am at least happy with this statement together with my assumption.

I'd gladly take a few off your hands. What currency/payment methods are you accepting?

No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well.

On that note, I think someone should compile a list of FAQ from shareholders that have gone unanswered. This list should be have no more than 3 questions at a time, and be posted in some kind of clear, concise way here, and in a pm to Friedcat. We should not waste his time with bullshit requests, but real relevant questions would be nice.

That's not even necessary. All you have to do is get a big enough voting population that rational ignorance kicks in, then advertise the hell out of your opponent. The one with the most money wins, and hey, guess what, corruption gets you money!

Certainly. You compared a system of small, voluntary defense groups with mutual defense contracts to feudalism. The only similarity between the two is the mutual defense agreements.

You compared a small voluntary militia using guerrilla tactics to the NVA using guerrilla tactics (OK, I made the comparison, but you couldn't see the difference between the two). The only similarity is the guerrilla tactics.

But that would still be a state versus another state, backed by yet another state.