You have to be careful with options. You could exercise them and realize a taxable gain of $2million but still be under contract not to sell the stock for quite a while. During that time the price could go down significantly until you actually owe more in taxes than the stock is worth. Its less of a no brainer than it may seem at first glance.
I'm sure some people on this board can comment on how they may have learned this lesson.
Most employee stock options allow you to sell the stock immediately upon exercising the option. I would recommend selling at least enough stock to cover the tax burden immediately just to eliminate the tax risk from your portfolio.
The time and cost required to meet various goals, minus the opportunity costs of meeting previos goals at those quicker and dirtier levels of effort.
Every day I'm more convinced that quick and dirty is better because it gets code written which means it can be tested and often that means finding some aspect of the way the business is *really* run that was previously unknown.
Of course, I work doing business programming. If I drop one order a month at $40 that's no big deal really. Customer service will call that person, work it out by hand. Total cost to us is usually about 1 hour of customer service time. If I have to go fix that rare case to save $40/month and it costs the company $5k's worth of my time, that's not money well spent. We can process 99.9+% of all orders without a hitch. If I were coding for heart monitors however I might have a different attitude or at least much higher tolerances (I'm thinking 1 in a billion at least).
Re:Jumping in on the discussion early.
on
A Game of Thrones
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Tolkien is the only author I can compare Martin to. Both have crafted wonderful worlds that are believable.
I consider Tolkien the best storyteller I've read though. I felt his description of events were as much about describing the world as of the events themselves. His characters where larger than life.
Martin's writing is all about the story and events, the world is just the setting. Martin's characters are all too human and none seem above human failures.
Two subtly different styles exectued masterfully. I see no need to rank them, there's plenty of time to read them both.
Re:Jumping in on the discussion early.
on
A Game of Thrones
·
· Score: 1
"even the bad guys"
One of the things I liked about Martin's books is that not all the bad guys are bad guys. Some are only "bad" because they are the enemy of the good guys (or are they?)
What I mean is that one character would seem to be willing to do good, but he is incessantly attack for merely being related to "bad guys", some of whom are not quite as bad as originally believed.
There is a definite fog of war going on in this. The characters act with less than perfect information and unlike other stories they don't figure everything out before they make a fatal decision.
Good guys die, bad guys die, it seems nobody is safe. Children are killed to eliminate bloodlines.
I would describe this more as medieval warfare with a touch of fantasy and Romance thrown in.
So, don't buy this book or you'll end up reading all three and waiting for the next couple years for the story to complete. It will also make you realize how much other fantasy sucks.
As I recall, a photon has no rest mass. The equation you give treats momentum and speed as though they are unrelated. Its probably just a matter of where you want to draw your assumptions when saying that a zero rest mass object moving at the speed of light does have finite, positive momentum.
Zero raised to an infinite power is undefined and can be zero, any number or infinite. In this case we are able to define it through observation.
Ok, just looking at your equation again. Your m is the rest mass. The whole thing simplifies to E=mc^2 if m is defined as the mass at its current speed (the photon's mass while travelling at the speed of light).
Java didn't really try to do this or else we wouldn't have primitives today. If someone cares to say something about speed and optimization, I'd like to preemptively reply, "are you kidding?"
Java was not made to be useful. It was made to be less complex so that the common programmer can understand it.
A "best practice" should of course change as appropriate, but the shouldn't be changing this damn fast.
Oops, just replying to the wrong point in the thread. If you take offense, please offend someone else until it reaches the right person.
I hear your pain about Math.sin(). Even VB and JavaScript can fix that problem for you. Java requires you to wrap a local function around it however. I suppose that does add to lines of code and that's productivity.
I think the greater problem with hearing "best practices" from the Java crowd is that they keep changing them.
Also, a lot of these "best prctices" are pushed out by Sun's marketing well before any sort of performance is up to par.
And finally, if people were really capable of following "best practices" why the hell did Java have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator? If we assume people can code to "best practices" then Java would never have come about. That's its chief selling point, you can find just any java programmer to fill in.
What also happens in this case is that groups find they can implement something much cheaper internally than having corporate IT work on it. This ends up with lots of groups with completely different IT processes.
I do know what "begs the question" means and can use it correctly. I've been guilty of it in numerous proofs although as I get better and better I can make it more and more subtle.
According to the logic people, a phrase can have only one meaning. *this* however is the English language and its decidedly non logical. For instance: This sentence is both true and false. That's a valid sentence even if its not true.
The poster who used the phrase "begs the question" was not using the logic phrase incorrectly, he was using the English language correctly. It conveyed the exact meaning he wanted it to and it was understood by everyone. Now, if he were discussing a proof of some kind then he should have chosen his words more clearly. He was not and his meaning was perfectly understood. That's successful writing.
When discussing artillery matters over the radio, you're not supposed to use the word "repeat" but should use "say again" as repeat has a separate meaning (it means fire again). Does this ban its use everywhere else? No.
In short, I challenge your axiomatic assumption that each phrase can only be used one way.
You knew exactly what he meant, everyone else knew exactly what he meant. How can what he wrote be wrong.
Unless there's some mystical book of allowed phrases that disallows anything not in it. Of course that would mean that your meaning of "begs the question" could never have come to be if it weren't in that book. This begs the question of how it got there.
Seriously though, the phrase "begs the question" works the exact same way that "demands my attention" works. Phrases are created every day and to say that a phrase that makes perfectly obvious sense is invalid because someone used it in a way that isn't obvious, now that doesn't make sense.
Or proove me wrong and give me a link to that book of allowable phrases for the English language.
That's not how you do a boycott for this kind of situation.
You start by picking one artist everyone can live with out and put the screws to him. *Force* him to change. Then move on to the next. These are the people signing the contracts with the RIAA/MPAA. Make them change their mind who they should work for.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be careful with options. You could exercise them and realize a taxable gain of $2million but still be under contract not to sell the stock for quite a while. During that time the price could go down significantly until you actually owe more in taxes than the stock is worth. Its less of a no brainer than it may seem at first glance.
I'm sure some people on this board can comment on how they may have learned this lesson.
Most employee stock options allow you to sell the stock immediately upon exercising the option. I would recommend selling at least enough stock to cover the tax burden immediately just to eliminate the tax risk from your portfolio.
The time and cost required to meet various goals, minus the opportunity costs of meeting previos goals at those quicker and dirtier levels of effort.
Every day I'm more convinced that quick and dirty is better because it gets code written which means it can be tested and often that means finding some aspect of the way the business is *really* run that was previously unknown.
Of course, I work doing business programming. If I drop one order a month at $40 that's no big deal really. Customer service will call that person, work it out by hand. Total cost to us is usually about 1 hour of customer service time. If I have to go fix that rare case to save $40/month and it costs the company $5k's worth of my time, that's not money well spent. We can process 99.9+% of all orders without a hitch. If I were coding for heart monitors however I might have a different attitude or at least much higher tolerances (I'm thinking 1 in a billion at least).
With a diesel you don't have to rotate the spark plugs.
I always thought Sixpack when used in that phrase referred to beer since its generally talking about a common man with a common man's taste.
Your last name is Race, but even cooler is your userid.
I miss my Olds.
What he's saying is that if its a SCO copyright, we would have found it already, right?
And if its the GNU copyright that matches Linux and SCO Unix, then its not the Linux crowd that's standing on the tracks.
Cuando Omni Flunkus, Moritati
Tolkien is the only author I can compare Martin to. Both have crafted wonderful worlds that are believable.
I consider Tolkien the best storyteller I've read though. I felt his description of events were as much about describing the world as of the events themselves. His characters where larger than life.
Martin's writing is all about the story and events, the world is just the setting. Martin's characters are all too human and none seem above human failures.
Two subtly different styles exectued masterfully. I see no need to rank them, there's plenty of time to read them both.
"even the bad guys"
One of the things I liked about Martin's books is that not all the bad guys are bad guys. Some are only "bad" because they are the enemy of the good guys (or are they?)
What I mean is that one character would seem to be willing to do good, but he is incessantly attack for merely being related to "bad guys", some of whom are not quite as bad as originally believed.
There is a definite fog of war going on in this. The characters act with less than perfect information and unlike other stories they don't figure everything out before they make a fatal decision.
Good guys die, bad guys die, it seems nobody is safe. Children are killed to eliminate bloodlines.
I would describe this more as medieval warfare with a touch of fantasy and Romance thrown in.
So, don't buy this book or you'll end up reading all three and waiting for the next couple years for the story to complete. It will also make you realize how much other fantasy sucks.
Alcohol would be a hell of a lot cheaper if it wasn't a requirement that consumable alcohol be made through fermentation and distillation.
Yes, you can have 100% ethanol if you make it chemically.
Everclear is for wimps.
As I recall, a photon has no rest mass. The equation you give treats momentum and speed as though they are unrelated. Its probably just a matter of where you want to draw your assumptions when saying that a zero rest mass object moving at the speed of light does have finite, positive momentum.
Zero raised to an infinite power is undefined and can be zero, any number or infinite. In this case we are able to define it through observation.
Ok, just looking at your equation again. Your m is the rest mass. The whole thing simplifies to E=mc^2 if m is defined as the mass at its current speed (the photon's mass while travelling at the speed of light).
PC notebooks are heavier because Apple notebooks are designed for women and sissies.
Java didn't really try to do this or else we wouldn't have primitives today. If someone cares to say something about speed and optimization, I'd like to preemptively reply, "are you kidding?"
Java was not made to be useful. It was made to be less complex so that the common programmer can understand it.
A "best practice" should of course change as appropriate, but the shouldn't be changing this damn fast.
Oops, just replying to the wrong point in the thread. If you take offense, please offend someone else until it reaches the right person.
I hear your pain about Math.sin(). Even VB and JavaScript can fix that problem for you. Java requires you to wrap a local function around it however. I suppose that does add to lines of code and that's productivity.
I think the greater problem with hearing "best practices" from the Java crowd is that they keep changing them.
Also, a lot of these "best prctices" are pushed out by Sun's marketing well before any sort of performance is up to par.
And finally, if people were really capable of following "best practices" why the hell did Java have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator? If we assume people can code to "best practices" then Java would never have come about. That's its chief selling point, you can find just any java programmer to fill in.
Sun is dying.
Sure, let's start the slashdot team.
I propose we work with:
LISP, Win2k and emacs.
Assuming that's ok with everyone we can get started.
The major problem is having to drop it every time you want to click on something.
Yea, until emacs-lisp handles rationals the world is not complete.
Oh, there is some other language than common lisp and emacs-lisp?
What also happens in this case is that groups find they can implement something much cheaper internally than having corporate IT work on it. This ends up with lots of groups with completely different IT processes.
Boston, Texas.
Iron?
Hah! Only amaeteurs use iron. The real agencies use any computer and send it back in time so the answer is already in the database.
Or you could precede your entire set of advice with: "This is what I would do".
Uh, is this meta-legal advice on how to avoid culpability in giving legal advice?
I do know what "begs the question" means and can use it correctly. I've been guilty of it in numerous proofs although as I get better and better I can make it more and more subtle.
According to the logic people, a phrase can have only one meaning. *this* however is the English language and its decidedly non logical. For instance: This sentence is both true and false. That's a valid sentence even if its not true.
The poster who used the phrase "begs the question" was not using the logic phrase incorrectly, he was using the English language correctly. It conveyed the exact meaning he wanted it to and it was understood by everyone. Now, if he were discussing a proof of some kind then he should have chosen his words more clearly. He was not and his meaning was perfectly understood. That's successful writing.
When discussing artillery matters over the radio, you're not supposed to use the word "repeat" but should use "say again" as repeat has a separate meaning (it means fire again). Does this ban its use everywhere else? No.
In short, I challenge your axiomatic assumption that each phrase can only be used one way.
You knew exactly what he meant, everyone else knew exactly what he meant. How can what he wrote be wrong.
Unless there's some mystical book of allowed phrases that disallows anything not in it. Of course that would mean that your meaning of "begs the question" could never have come to be if it weren't in that book. This begs the question of how it got there.
Seriously though, the phrase "begs the question" works the exact same way that "demands my attention" works. Phrases are created every day and to say that a phrase that makes perfectly obvious sense is invalid because someone used it in a way that isn't obvious, now that doesn't make sense.
Or proove me wrong and give me a link to that book of allowable phrases for the English language.
That's not how you do a boycott for this kind of situation.
You start by picking one artist everyone can live with out and put the screws to him. *Force* him to change. Then move on to the next. These are the people signing the contracts with the RIAA/MPAA. Make them change their mind who they should work for.