CDs for me. I don't buy much music anyway, and don't listen to much except when commuting. If I had a party (hypothetically) I could just turn on the TV and use one of the music services built into the roku, either free or a one month sub only (or maybe bring up youtube with the 24 hour looping Taking The Hobbits To Isengard, which will make the parties shorter so that I can get back to other stuff).
Don't need managers, get team leads instead. The whole reason there's one manager for so many teams is that upper management is saving money: workers are dirt cheap, managers are precious resources. Workers keep their heads down, managers have to attend a thousand meetings a week (all on corporate time not foreign time).
Most of these tech companies don't make a profit, Plenty of them never will make a profit, ever. So people are speculating based upon an analyst's wild ass guess as to what the company is worth. A company that pays dividends gives you $5/share and that's money in the bank if you like, or you can reinvest also. Shares don't go up just because the profits are rolled into growth, they shares only go up if the market wants them to go up (usually because an analyst gives a good rating).
Things did used to be more stable back when there were fewer investors and most investors were professionals. Now everyone's in the market and the pros are doing trades where every millisecond count, and most activity is with short term trades and not long term investments. Because the market forces see this churn of short term investments that affects the value even of stocks held for the long term.
I was at a company that was hugely profitable before being an IPO. There was little consideration about becoming a public company because there was no need for it. Lots of people making lots of money (except for me). This was shortly before the dot-com boom. Then the owners decided that being public was a good thing and went through the IPO process. This annoyed a lot of people because of all the new rules they had to follow (making the books public, telling the truth, etc). Later they went bust (this was shortly before the dot-com bust) and some people went to jail (shortly before the whole Enron thing).
Especially with a company that never makes a decent profit and then becomes bankrupt, but along the way there were lots of buying and selling of stock which ultimately end up worthless. Which means that some people make a lot of money basically by betting that other people would lose a lot of money.
Indeed you see a lot of startups where the primary goal is to be bought out by someone else rather than actually making a viable business or product. The sad thing is that they sometimes succeed which only encourages more of this.
I really dislike the attitude of demanding huge growth all the time where investment is the same thing as speculation. I'd like to go back to a time when getting a predictable return on investment via interest or dividend was considered the smart thing to do.
Most tech startups that I see have little to nothing to do with technology either. If they're online then the masses call them "tech". After all they called Amazon a tech company when all it did was sell books.
A lot of companies don't see the need to grow continuously. When the business is stable and now growing then paying dividends is the common to share profits with the shareholders. Who else do you give profits to other than the owners? Very often the person who started the business is desperate to get some of that money back (legally) to pay off bank loans used to start the business. So there's a mix of putting some profits back into the business and some profits to pay the owners.
A company that gives out dividends is a good sign, it says that the company is confident about profitability. You don't see this much in tech startups because tech startups are usually risky ventures run by risky people who are not funded by banks who want a regular loan payment but by VCs who want to strike it rich also.
Yup, if you're paying significant taxes as a corporation then you need to get better accountants. Companies do not stay in the US because of patriotic loyalty, they stay because they're making good money.
Dividends used to be the standard way to get paid by owning stock, especially with blue chip companies. This is basic profit sharing to the shareholders. Now in the "new" economy it's all about growth, growth, and more growth. The money is made through speculation instead, hoping that the stock price rises and that you can sell it before it goes back down.
For example, if you invest in uncle Joe's restaurant you can ask that you be paid a percentage of the profits each year if there are any. So fine, pay $1000 and get back $5 a month, and when you tire of it sell of you $1000 stake to someone else. And you also get a bit of voting rights along with the other investors. As long as Joe is making a profit then you are making some money. And Joe gets $1000 to help pay off the cost of running the place in the early days. The shareholders in this model want the dividends. It's a good investment. That's basic capitalism.
On the other hand it would be naive to assume Joe's restaurant business will grow much, he'll get more customers maybe but there will be a natural leveling off. With luck there may be two restaurants someday, but you can't count on luck. It'd be really stupid and naive to assume Joe's going to have a big restaurant chain someday. And yet that's how startups work, everyone assumes that they'll be insanely rich someday, the utter morons will believe they'll be insanely rich even before turning a profit, and the truly deranged will mortgage their house based on this (which often leads to divorce). These shareholders don't want their investments diluted before they become insanely rich. This is all about making a risky investment in hopes of a big payout, no different than gambling at Vegas (except that the odds are better in Vegas).
To me, the whole concept of enterprise management is broken. We managed to put a man on the moon without IT goons sniffing around to make sure you weren't using unapproved software. And operating system built into the chip so that you can access it even when it's turned off, just seems bizarre, and to add this to *every* computer is overkill. If there are a few key computers that you need to access even when they're turned off then add extra third party hardware to those computers rather than having it built into the CPU module (and if the computer is that important, just don't turn it off in the first place).
The whole think just seems like a giant grab of power control by the IT groups.
Then apply those rules to bankers who applied for a federal bailout after they screwed up the economy in ways that no one would have been capable of if they were sober.
It's probably a holdover from Reagan era when the poor were blamed for everything. As in the claim (good for campaigning) that poor people deliberately have more babies in order to get welfare benefits. So politicians in some states thought that poor people would spend their welfare checks on drugs and thus we have a requirement for drug testing.
Personally, someone getting high behind the quickie mart isn't nearly as scary as a Wall Street banker having a few martinis before pushing some buttons.
Everything is theoretical. Theoretically, setting off a bomb in my basement would cause a lot of unnecessary damage. Theoretically, invading a country would damage diplomatic efforts with that country.
I think Brennan is using this word to confuse congress. They'll think "oh, it's just a theory, like evolution and climate change, so we can ignore it."
The video equivalent of fan-fic. I want the fan-fic people to read some more books, and I want the video bloggers to listen to some good NPR, just to know what good stuff is like.
Some stuff is ok. I like Will Wheaton's TableTop he gets right to the point at the start and shows you what's coming up before running the intro.
Slashdot Mirror
CDs for me. I don't buy much music anyway, and don't listen to much except when commuting. If I had a party (hypothetically) I could just turn on the TV and use one of the music services built into the roku, either free or a one month sub only (or maybe bring up youtube with the 24 hour looping Taking The Hobbits To Isengard, which will make the parties shorter so that I can get back to other stuff).
Don't need managers, get team leads instead. The whole reason there's one manager for so many teams is that upper management is saving money: workers are dirt cheap, managers are precious resources. Workers keep their heads down, managers have to attend a thousand meetings a week (all on corporate time not foreign time).
When there are professional Agile trainers then that should have served as a warning sign to everyone that it's a potential scam.
You think we should jump straight into this? Why not have a planning meeting for the video conference meeting?
Because more men around leads to a frat house mentality at work, that's why. It's nice to have mature and professional people at work for a change.
Most of these tech companies don't make a profit, Plenty of them never will make a profit, ever. So people are speculating based upon an analyst's wild ass guess as to what the company is worth. A company that pays dividends gives you $5/share and that's money in the bank if you like, or you can reinvest also. Shares don't go up just because the profits are rolled into growth, they shares only go up if the market wants them to go up (usually because an analyst gives a good rating).
Things did used to be more stable back when there were fewer investors and most investors were professionals. Now everyone's in the market and the pros are doing trades where every millisecond count, and most activity is with short term trades and not long term investments. Because the market forces see this churn of short term investments that affects the value even of stocks held for the long term.
I was at a company that was hugely profitable before being an IPO. There was little consideration about becoming a public company because there was no need for it. Lots of people making lots of money (except for me). This was shortly before the dot-com boom. Then the owners decided that being public was a good thing and went through the IPO process. This annoyed a lot of people because of all the new rules they had to follow (making the books public, telling the truth, etc). Later they went bust (this was shortly before the dot-com bust) and some people went to jail (shortly before the whole Enron thing).
Especially with a company that never makes a decent profit and then becomes bankrupt, but along the way there were lots of buying and selling of stock which ultimately end up worthless. Which means that some people make a lot of money basically by betting that other people would lose a lot of money.
Indeed you see a lot of startups where the primary goal is to be bought out by someone else rather than actually making a viable business or product. The sad thing is that they sometimes succeed which only encourages more of this.
I really dislike the attitude of demanding huge growth all the time where investment is the same thing as speculation. I'd like to go back to a time when getting a predictable return on investment via interest or dividend was considered the smart thing to do.
Most tech startups that I see have little to nothing to do with technology either. If they're online then the masses call them "tech". After all they called Amazon a tech company when all it did was sell books.
Because startups are cool. Like fezzes.
A lot of companies don't see the need to grow continuously. When the business is stable and now growing then paying dividends is the common to share profits with the shareholders. Who else do you give profits to other than the owners? Very often the person who started the business is desperate to get some of that money back (legally) to pay off bank loans used to start the business. So there's a mix of putting some profits back into the business and some profits to pay the owners.
A company that gives out dividends is a good sign, it says that the company is confident about profitability. You don't see this much in tech startups because tech startups are usually risky ventures run by risky people who are not funded by banks who want a regular loan payment but by VCs who want to strike it rich also.
Yup, if you're paying significant taxes as a corporation then you need to get better accountants. Companies do not stay in the US because of patriotic loyalty, they stay because they're making good money.
Dividends used to be the standard way to get paid by owning stock, especially with blue chip companies. This is basic profit sharing to the shareholders. Now in the "new" economy it's all about growth, growth, and more growth. The money is made through speculation instead, hoping that the stock price rises and that you can sell it before it goes back down.
For example, if you invest in uncle Joe's restaurant you can ask that you be paid a percentage of the profits each year if there are any. So fine, pay $1000 and get back $5 a month, and when you tire of it sell of you $1000 stake to someone else. And you also get a bit of voting rights along with the other investors. As long as Joe is making a profit then you are making some money. And Joe gets $1000 to help pay off the cost of running the place in the early days. The shareholders in this model want the dividends. It's a good investment. That's basic capitalism.
On the other hand it would be naive to assume Joe's restaurant business will grow much, he'll get more customers maybe but there will be a natural leveling off. With luck there may be two restaurants someday, but you can't count on luck. It'd be really stupid and naive to assume Joe's going to have a big restaurant chain someday. And yet that's how startups work, everyone assumes that they'll be insanely rich someday, the utter morons will believe they'll be insanely rich even before turning a profit, and the truly deranged will mortgage their house based on this (which often leads to divorce). These shareholders don't want their investments diluted before they become insanely rich. This is all about making a risky investment in hopes of a big payout, no different than gambling at Vegas (except that the odds are better in Vegas).
Why not? Do you think it will self destruct before then?
while also removing expensive custom ICs that themselves were often buggy and flakey.
And of course, Intel is never buggy and flaky.
To me, the whole concept of enterprise management is broken. We managed to put a man on the moon without IT goons sniffing around to make sure you weren't using unapproved software. And operating system built into the chip so that you can access it even when it's turned off, just seems bizarre, and to add this to *every* computer is overkill. If there are a few key computers that you need to access even when they're turned off then add extra third party hardware to those computers rather than having it built into the CPU module (and if the computer is that important, just don't turn it off in the first place).
The whole think just seems like a giant grab of power control by the IT groups.
I am threatened by all emojis equally. They should all be banned from entering the US.
Then apply those rules to bankers who applied for a federal bailout after they screwed up the economy in ways that no one would have been capable of if they were sober.
It's probably a holdover from Reagan era when the poor were blamed for everything. As in the claim (good for campaigning) that poor people deliberately have more babies in order to get welfare benefits. So politicians in some states thought that poor people would spend their welfare checks on drugs and thus we have a requirement for drug testing.
Personally, someone getting high behind the quickie mart isn't nearly as scary as a Wall Street banker having a few martinis before pushing some buttons.
Everything is theoretical. Theoretically, setting off a bomb in my basement would cause a lot of unnecessary damage. Theoretically, invading a country would damage diplomatic efforts with that country.
I think Brennan is using this word to confuse congress. They'll think "oh, it's just a theory, like evolution and climate change, so we can ignore it."
The video equivalent of fan-fic. I want the fan-fic people to read some more books, and I want the video bloggers to listen to some good NPR, just to know what good stuff is like.
Some stuff is ok. I like Will Wheaton's TableTop he gets right to the point at the start and shows you what's coming up before running the intro.
Wham, bam, THANKYOU ma'am.
The interior is designed for only one purpose. Which is strange because silk stains so easily.
It's the wheel for your hamster.