Falling stock prices often contribute to bankruptcy because of lot of debt structures are at least partly short-term, requiring it to be rolled over from time to time, and creditors are less willing to roll over the debt when the stock price is tanking. They get nervous.
And layoffs announcements often cause a bump in share price when times are good or just okay, because it signals lower future expenses. But in times like these, when investors are nervous, unexpected layoff announcements can be taken as a signal that things are the company are worse than people thought. It signals that management thinks future revenues are likely to be lower, and that they are trying to cut expenses to help compensate.
Also, you seem to keep posting income figures for a single individual. What about single-provider marriages and full-family situations? Should the earner still only earn enough for an individual?
Uh, yeah, unless some qualification dictates otherwise. A man or woman supporting a family shouldn't necessarily be paid more than a single person. That's discrimination. Welcome to the real world. The nightmare of the 1950's is over.
Are you kidding? If you want to take away someone else's liberty to do something, the burden of proof that the something in question is so harmful to society as to justify that restriction of liberty should fall on you.
How is this different from alcohol use? Or the societal costs of some people eating way too much? Should diets in excess of 2,000 calories per day be illegal? If you think they should be illegal, you are a scary person, but at least your argument is consistent.
Oh yeah, that's right. And the Dutch also gave us option contracts, as they were necessary to facilitate tulip mania. So, in a sense, the Dutch invented derivatives.* So this global financial crisis is really your fault. Of course.
* Unless you consider more traditional insurance contracts derivatives, which some do, and which were used in Italy and probably elsewhere well before tulip mania.
Basically correct. There was no federal income tax until during the Civil War, when we needed a way to pay for soldiers and supplies. We were like a teenager who learned for the first time about this thing called credit. We've had a national debt since then, and thus of course federal income taxes. No one would lend to the federal government if it didn't have the power to tax to pay the debt back. A lot of people don't seem to get this connection between debt and taxes. I;m a fiscal conservative, but when so-called fiscal conservatives push through income tax cuts, that just raise our national debt. Future taxes will be higher. In total, we'll pay even more than we would have if we hadn't put it off because more interest is added. Some idiots claim "debt doesn't matter" because we basically owe the money to ourselves. But US Treasuries are now obviously held in large part by non-US institutions. But even that is not the biggest point. The biggest point is the shifting of the burden from one generation to the next.
This is long-winded and may seem off-topic, but I think it's very relevant to a discussion of individual rights. Whether the federal government had the power to incur a national debt and then to tax to pay it off was hotly debated for a long time. Now, the vast majority just accepts it. Yes, the federal government needs some revenue. I'm not an anti-government crackpot. But look at our national debt. Look toward the future at the taxes we and the next generations will have to pay to pay off our debt. At what point does it stop? Should our government have the power to make us all debtors to the rest of the world?
Keep in mind that many (most?) of these are public companies. Channel Insider would probably get a lot of flak if they published an article flatly predicting their failure in the next year. This way, they can point to their own comments and say they did no such thing.
Are you being sarcastic, or are you actually suggesting that your fellow guys should remove their pubic hair in some way? If you think hair is gross and want to mess with that part of your anatomy, that's fine... live and let live. But since this is a site for nerds--mostly male nerds, who stereotypically are not much in tune with the female viewpoint--I feel the need to speak up and warn any guys out there against getting the idea that women prefer hairless genitals. I obviously can't speak for all women, but the only time I've even heard another woman mention pubic hair was to complain about a man's shaved balls. She thought it was disgusting and showed lack of self-respect. If you feel the need to trim, go for it. But leave it basically intact. Just my suggestion.
I think he might be alluding to this in the start of the video when he talks about coming out in support of this platform or that over his years of interest in computing.
I'm no fan of Reagonomics, but I don't think low taxes are to blame. For residents of NYC, taxes are *extremely* high. I think the problem is that too much was spent where it shouldn't have been. We spend too much for certain types of civil servant salaries, and we also spend too much on education, especially state payments to schools outside of NYC. Yes, I know it's taboo to suggest we should actually spend less on education, but New York is one of the few states (maybe the only state) that actually overspends on this particular public good. NYC tax revenue is funneled to the state and then redistributed. Only a fraction of it gets back to NYC. I'm all for supporting our public education system (of which I'm a product), and I do think we as a society should be very focused on improving it. But what we don't need is to throw more money at the issue. And civil servant salaries is a touchy issue as well. To be fair on that point, everything has been distorted over the last few years by the ridiculous property bubble that made it impossible for working/middle class people to make a decent living on reasonable wages. For civil servants, this means their bosses (taxpayers) were forced to give raises they couldn't afford, decreasing their own standard of living through higher taxes. Everyone was screwed.
You weren't clued in to this by the "News for Nerds... Stuff That Matters" tagline? Of course a site purporting to know what "matters" to you is biased. For the most part, no one here pretends otherwise, which is neutral enough for me.
I know that we're very much in the minority, but I think there are more women on Slashdot than most people generally assume. I would guess that most of us just don't post comments that identify ourselves as female. Gender is usually not relevant to Slashdot discussions, and the few times it actually is germane I tend to want to just stay out of the fray.
>>When it things get too hostile, I'll ditch the cable entirely.
I agree completely. I just recently got my cable hooked back up after several years without. What was the impetus? Hauppauge HD-PVR. You would think anyone in the business of selling things would realize that the less someone can do with those things, the less he or she is willing to pay for them.
I should mention that I still think you have a good basic point, though. GM's stock in particular stayed inflated far longer than it should have. What were investors thinking?
Slashdot Mirror
Falling stock prices often contribute to bankruptcy because of lot of debt structures are at least partly short-term, requiring it to be rolled over from time to time, and creditors are less willing to roll over the debt when the stock price is tanking. They get nervous.
And layoffs announcements often cause a bump in share price when times are good or just okay, because it signals lower future expenses. But in times like these, when investors are nervous, unexpected layoff announcements can be taken as a signal that things are the company are worse than people thought. It signals that management thinks future revenues are likely to be lower, and that they are trying to cut expenses to help compensate.
Or maybe he doesn't want his salary forever associated with his username.
Also, you seem to keep posting income figures for a single individual. What about single-provider marriages and full-family situations? Should the earner still only earn enough for an individual?
Uh, yeah, unless some qualification dictates otherwise. A man or woman supporting a family shouldn't necessarily be paid more than a single person. That's discrimination. Welcome to the real world. The nightmare of the 1950's is over.
Are you kidding? If you want to take away someone else's liberty to do something, the burden of proof that the something in question is so harmful to society as to justify that restriction of liberty should fall on you.
How is this different from alcohol use? Or the societal costs of some people eating way too much? Should diets in excess of 2,000 calories per day be illegal? If you think they should be illegal, you are a scary person, but at least your argument is consistent.
Oh yeah, that's right. And the Dutch also gave us option contracts, as they were necessary to facilitate tulip mania. So, in a sense, the Dutch invented derivatives.* So this global financial crisis is really your fault. Of course.
* Unless you consider more traditional insurance contracts derivatives, which some do, and which were used in Italy and probably elsewhere well before tulip mania.
(Yes, this is tongue in cheek.)
No self-respecting economist still believes this nonsense. It's not worth a serious reply.
Basically correct. There was no federal income tax until during the Civil War, when we needed a way to pay for soldiers and supplies. We were like a teenager who learned for the first time about this thing called credit. We've had a national debt since then, and thus of course federal income taxes. No one would lend to the federal government if it didn't have the power to tax to pay the debt back. A lot of people don't seem to get this connection between debt and taxes. I;m a fiscal conservative, but when so-called fiscal conservatives push through income tax cuts, that just raise our national debt. Future taxes will be higher. In total, we'll pay even more than we would have if we hadn't put it off because more interest is added. Some idiots claim "debt doesn't matter" because we basically owe the money to ourselves. But US Treasuries are now obviously held in large part by non-US institutions. But even that is not the biggest point. The biggest point is the shifting of the burden from one generation to the next.
This is long-winded and may seem off-topic, but I think it's very relevant to a discussion of individual rights. Whether the federal government had the power to incur a national debt and then to tax to pay it off was hotly debated for a long time. Now, the vast majority just accepts it. Yes, the federal government needs some revenue. I'm not an anti-government crackpot. But look at our national debt. Look toward the future at the taxes we and the next generations will have to pay to pay off our debt. At what point does it stop? Should our government have the power to make us all debtors to the rest of the world?
Keep in mind that many (most?) of these are public companies. Channel Insider would probably get a lot of flak if they published an article flatly predicting their failure in the next year. This way, they can point to their own comments and say they did no such thing.
Way off topic, but I have to chime in...
Are you being sarcastic, or are you actually suggesting that your fellow guys should remove their pubic hair in some way? If you think hair is gross and want to mess with that part of your anatomy, that's fine... live and let live. But since this is a site for nerds--mostly male nerds, who stereotypically are not much in tune with the female viewpoint--I feel the need to speak up and warn any guys out there against getting the idea that women prefer hairless genitals. I obviously can't speak for all women, but the only time I've even heard another woman mention pubic hair was to complain about a man's shaved balls. She thought it was disgusting and showed lack of self-respect. If you feel the need to trim, go for it. But leave it basically intact. Just my suggestion.
I'm sure you've heard of cell phones. You don't have to be a smartass.
If your company has an emergency (or something perceived as an emergency by the PHB) every ten minutes, you're right, calls wouldn't help.
Could you implement a policy to require someone to actually call you or use some other contact method for that?
Also check out www.liberalviewer.com. You might be able to get some info from his story.
I think he might be alluding to this in the start of the video when he talks about coming out in support of this platform or that over his years of interest in computing.
I'm no fan of Reagonomics, but I don't think low taxes are to blame. For residents of NYC, taxes are *extremely* high. I think the problem is that too much was spent where it shouldn't have been. We spend too much for certain types of civil servant salaries, and we also spend too much on education, especially state payments to schools outside of NYC. Yes, I know it's taboo to suggest we should actually spend less on education, but New York is one of the few states (maybe the only state) that actually overspends on this particular public good. NYC tax revenue is funneled to the state and then redistributed. Only a fraction of it gets back to NYC. I'm all for supporting our public education system (of which I'm a product), and I do think we as a society should be very focused on improving it. But what we don't need is to throw more money at the issue. And civil servant salaries is a touchy issue as well. To be fair on that point, everything has been distorted over the last few years by the ridiculous property bubble that made it impossible for working/middle class people to make a decent living on reasonable wages. For civil servants, this means their bosses (taxpayers) were forced to give raises they couldn't afford, decreasing their own standard of living through higher taxes. Everyone was screwed.
You weren't clued in to this by the "News for Nerds... Stuff That Matters" tagline? Of course a site purporting to know what "matters" to you is biased. For the most part, no one here pretends otherwise, which is neutral enough for me.
I know that we're very much in the minority, but I think there are more women on Slashdot than most people generally assume. I would guess that most of us just don't post comments that identify ourselves as female. Gender is usually not relevant to Slashdot discussions, and the few times it actually is germane I tend to want to just stay out of the fray.
Bravo!
Because of the new scoring system, difficulty levels shot up this year. That probably accounts for the greater number of errors.
>>When it things get too hostile, I'll ditch the cable entirely.
I agree completely. I just recently got my cable hooked back up after several years without. What was the impetus? Hauppauge HD-PVR. You would think anyone in the business of selling things would realize that the less someone can do with those things, the less he or she is willing to pay for them.
"I wouldn't say that I've been *missing* it, Bob."
>>Conservatism, capitalism...that is what our country was founded on
Our founding fathers were, for their time, about as radical as they could have possibly been.
I should mention that I still think you have a good basic point, though. GM's stock in particular stayed inflated far longer than it should have. What were investors thinking?
I don't know about the other transactions listed, but I think when Ford bought Jaguar it paid $2.5b cash.