It's also the correct way to make him share in both success *and* failure.
Options were a reform that failed; they only work upwards. Once they dip underwater, they encourage wild risk, as the executive has nothing more to lose.
What we really need is a tax code adjustment. Right now, if an executive is paid in stock, the valuenis general immediately taxable. If half of his pay were in stock, he would have to either sell stock to pay these taxes or give up the bulk of his pay to pay them (and then pay capital gains on the amount by which they increased when he eventually sold them, the difference between the sales price and the "basis" [price he received them at and was taxed upon]).
Instead, when stock is the majority of the compensation, and is restricted from transfer for several years, it should come at a basis of 0, with no current taxation. When sold, the entire amount would be capital gain (or, tax the amount that would have been basis as ordinary income). Now the exec can afford to keep the stock, and also feels the shareholders' pain.
I'll be signing up for it just as soon as I'm done paying the proctologist for the 18" probe to monitor my digestion and suggest menu items for me.
And when I'm done buying this one, I'm going to buy an app that sends my banking information to the RIAA and MPAA to make appropriate payments for songs played loudly by the next car. After all, it's hardly fair that I'm able to listen to the song drowning out my own stereo without paying . . .
Yes, we all sat around thinking of the GNU operating system, and singing its praises.
Never mind that there wasn't a single system in the universe that ran this system after decades; we knew it would be great when it came.
So we made sure not to give any credit to any of the systems that used it's pieces. After all, they were just kernels, or just full Unix operating systems, and other insignificant things; it was all about GNU.
C'mon, now; this is important. Apple's OS just doesn'ttake full advantage of my 68040; now I'll be abletousemysystem asitshpuld ha been in the first place.
Those guys buying the PowerPC macs are just fools . .
A lot of work went into the BSD/GNU utilities that go into Linux, and it's disrespectful not to put BSD in front of everything inspired by it, such as "BSD/Linux with the kernel replaced by something obscure that will never be released."
I don't have the cite handy, but in the Supreme Court case upholding the shaving cream can patent, challenged for obviousness, the court cited the sums spent by the competitors in failed attempts to achieve the same result as clear evidence that it was *not* obvious until seen with hindsight
It's not at ms could yap for the government, but that no one else could, withoutht violating the patent?
FBI: "here is our warrant. Intercept that call." Non-ms skype competitor: I'm sorry, but I'm prohibited from doing that. Perhaps you could get the target to use skype?
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, go out and pay for it.
Generally speaking, on both sides of the pond, oral contacts are enforceable. Generally, though, oral statements cannot be used to contradict the written language of the contract, although exceptions exist.
Also, maying the oral statements the rule rather than the exception would make it very hard to rely on A contract, ore even know what it said--proving the oral statements is non-trivial.
I'd have a hard time responding anecdotally, as I picked up a physics degree with math and philosophy minors:)
(I could have completed either of them as majors with one more quarter. My father was even willing to pay, just to see them issue a B.S. in philosophy:)
Hmm, maybe should go get. Masters'. . . . I'm nearly the only one in my family that doesn't have one . . .
Slashdot Mirror
You must be new here.
In Russia,mthe anecdote applies *you*! :)
hawk
It's also the correct way to make him share in both success *and* failure.
Options were a reform that failed; they only work upwards. Once they dip underwater, they encourage wild risk, as the executive has nothing more to lose.
What we really need is a tax code adjustment. Right now, if an executive is paid in stock, the valuenis general immediately taxable. If half of his pay were in stock, he would have to either sell stock to pay these taxes or give up the bulk of his pay to pay them (and then pay capital gains on the amount by which they increased when he eventually sold them, the difference between the sales price and the "basis" [price he received them at and was taxed upon]).
Instead, when stock is the majority of the compensation, and is restricted from transfer for several years, it should come at a basis of 0, with no current taxation. When sold, the entire amount would be capital gain (or, tax the amount that would have been basis as ordinary income). Now the exec can afford to keep the stock, and also feels the shareholders' pain.
dochawk, economist
>I don't understand...why are they removing his account/ability to post?
I don't understand why it took so long.
After all, the guy hasn't posted a comment in nearly two years, and even then, whenever posted much. . .
hawk
Yeah, his insistence on using cookies delayed my registration for I forget how long . . . So I have this long 4 digit uid
There used to be cookie exchanges with junk buster--send your cookies in, and get a random assortment from others, instead.
Because spherical/cubical simplificationsmare always of diameter/edge 1, not 2000.
I'll be signing up for it just as soon as I'm done paying the proctologist for the 18" probe to monitor my digestion and suggest menu items for me.
And when I'm done buying this one, I'm going to buy an app that sends my banking information to the RIAA and MPAA to make appropriate payments for songs played loudly by the next car. After all, it's hardly fair that I'm able to listen to the song drowning out my own stereo without paying . . .
I'm torn here: is relevant than Hurd more or less embarrassing than still in alpha after Duke Nukem has shipped?
Yes, we all sat around thinking of the GNU operating system, and singing its praises.
Never mind that there wasn't a single system in the universe that ran this system after decades; we knew it would be great when it came.
So we made sure not to give any credit to any of the systems that used it's pieces. After all, they were just kernels, or just full Unix operating systems, and other insignificant things; it was all about GNU.
hawk
To put that time into perspective:
I have three grandchildren without having children as old as BeOS . . .
Maybe they can port this thing to the new Amiga . .
C'mon, now; this is important. Apple's OS just doesn'ttake full advantage of my 68040; now I'll be abletousemysystem asitshpuld ha been in the first place.
Those guys buying the PowerPC macs are just fools . .
Really?
"but Batman," he whined, "my gang and I were going to go hang out tonight!"
Was he as bad as the idea sounds?
*shudder*
It was for variants with *development*.
Slashem isn't developed; it's aggregated :)
Instead of criticizing and making fun of projects which are new or different why don't you embrace them and welcome them?
Wait a minute--I thought this was about Hurd. Are we instead discussing something new?
There are plenty of parents that are younger than Hurd; "new" hardly seems to be a reasonable word to use when discussing it.
hawk
>Hurd was a Victim of Good Enough
Moreso a victim of the Perfect being the Enemy of the Good (assuming you're willing to give it that much credit).
And it has given new meaning to "next generation" software, coming a full *human* generation later . . .
hawk
That's not nice.
A lot of work went into the BSD/GNU utilities that go into Linux, and it's disrespectful not to put BSD in front of everything inspired by it, such as "BSD/Linux with the kernel replaced by something obscure that will never be released."
hawk
I don't have the cite handy, but in the Supreme Court case upholding the shaving cream can patent, challenged for obviousness, the court cited the sums spent by the competitors in failed attempts to achieve the same result as clear evidence that it was *not* obvious until seen with hindsight
hawk, esq
Kids. Harumph.
In *my* day, when we wanted to blow up the terrain, we went outside and blew up the terrain.
And then ran before the neighbor recognized us or the fire department arrived! :)
hawk
No, those are mermaids, not octopi . . . :)
hawk
Nah, it could never operate the mechanism to collapse the umbrella with fins . . . :)
Hawk
Yes, you just repeated me.
The contract is enforceable; proving it is another issue. So we reduce it to writing, and hold both sides to what is in the document.
hawk
Bah. It's attitudes like yours that caused our NASA attacks on Mars.
You and your commie french units, instead of God-loving 'merican pounds and miles.
Because of you folks, our children have to life with intrplanetary war.
I hope you're happy.
It's not at ms could yap for the government, but that no one else could, withoutht violating the patent?
FBI: "here is our warrant. Intercept that call."
Non-ms skype competitor: I'm sorry, but I'm prohibited from doing that. Perhaps you could get the target to use skype?
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, go out and pay for it.
Generally speaking, on both sides of the pond, oral contacts are enforceable. Generally, though, oral statements cannot be used to contradict the written language of the contract, although exceptions exist.
Also, maying the oral statements the rule rather than the exception would make it very hard to rely on A contract, ore even know what it said--proving the oral statements is non-trivial.
hawk, esq
I'd have a hard time responding anecdotally, as I picked up a physics degree with math and philosophy minors :)
(I could have completed either of them as majors with one more quarter. My father was even willing to pay, just to see them issue a B.S. in philosophy:)
Hmm, maybe should go get. Masters'. . . . I'm nearly the only one in my family that doesn't have one . . .