I'm guessing you were gonna cash in on a 50k+ bonus from AIG?
Would it have been better to allow AIG to fall into chapter 13, break every contract anyways, and assassinate the worlds' equity markets? Unique situations like this require unique solutions and the president is doing a damn good job so far of fixing what was retardedly allowed under Clinton and Bush (i.e. the securitization of high risk debt, reinsured to be investment grade securities).
What happened earlier is Mugatu got a hold of the financial system (crap wrapped in tin foil sold to the queen). This whole asset class came out of no where fast and grew to monstrous proportions. As these assets devalue it takes the bottom out of the entire system. High finance is a small world - everyone knows everyone and people who understand what happened are needed to fix it. You are clearly not one of them.
The underlying problem is not one of conspiracy theories. Its one of plain responsibility. Execs need to fix what they broke, not profit from their breaking it, and step out once they've fixed it. How do you get them to do that? reward them when its done.
Perhaps a better idea would be to halt the bonuses (let them accumulate) until the system is back on its feet. People that perform well fixing the thing will get their payout... after all is running smoothly again in a few years. Step out early? no money.
Total War won't break out over this. Its a minor patent dispute. Not worth fighting tooth and nail over.
Also, TomTom doesn't have to worry too much since its Dutch company (EU folks) - microsoft will think twice about retribution because of the way having its ass handed to it over here where the playing field is a little more level.
Now, this is why doing business in the US is getting to be more and more expensive, and is stifling innovation. If this legal quagmire continues the US will lose its competitive edge as it did in manufacturing and is currently doing so in finance. The law is not only going to kill technical innovation but business innovation as well.
Luckily its still the easiest country to start a company in, as well as has pretty decent tax and labor laws (beneficial to companies).
Hence why in my (successful) job hunting, I never go through hiring managers. The job of ALL hr departments is to rule candidates out. Not rule them in. So my tip: if you see a hiring manager in your path to getting a job, go around him, under him, over him or trample him on your way to the guy who can really help get you the job.
Of course the extreme example above might have several valid claims as to why to reject a person, most of the time someone finds "objectionable" content about a candidate on the net its because of a bias against a particular behavior. Such as a Mormon hiring manager seeing a photo of a candidate in a pub, or a pro-life hiring manager finding a picture of the candidate at a pro-choice rally.
umm not that much more? GM pays a 16% premium over what Toyota pays. Any company would dance in the streets if they could get that kind of a cut out of their labor costs.
credentials are definitely overpraised. overpriced too. mine include a toptier MBA which enables one to make seemingly reasonable, statistically provable, and empirically subjective arguments to convince the masses that they need to consume more. Consider me the worst kind - a nerd in a suit;)
Umm, you didn't specify if your life had improved or degraded. I will assume improved, afterall who wouldn't want to hang out with a bunch of nerds who all have an opinion but no credentials to fall back on.
You should look into professional documentation writing companies that are specialized in applying authoring structures to your information. Usually what happens is a text writer will sit with you to create the structure and then fill it in with your input. You would be surprised at how effective this is, for you and the user. They help you select the correct medium that best for the user.
Also, remember, you're not documenting this for yourself, but for the person who will be following the instructions. Job security is moot in this situation - they hire you for your effectiveness at implementing the solutions.
I used to work with a Netherlands based company that did this www.landl.com
Its not cheap, but it gives excellent results.
Apple won't start a music label for the following reasons:
Its not their core business - (appears to be a logical step but itunes faciliatates sales of ipods and other apple gear). Apple might be able to hire the skills but it doesn't match their business strategy
It would be business suicide. Once apple start competing with labels, they'll pull their libraries and Apple will lose their entire competitive edge in the market being able to offer only new stuff
It would in the long run make them uncool. Apple would turn into "the man" as other labels scramble emulate them. Eventually apple will be just another label.
you have to remember - apple is in the business of making money NOT doing whats necessarily benevolent for the consumer. Bad to say it that way but its reality. Apple ultimately answers to shareholders and shareholders don't care about RIAA conflicts if it doesn't impact their shareprice.
If a lawyer thought there was a really strong case, wouldn't you just tell them "take as much as you think is fair of the final judgement as long as I end up with more than 100k"
$100,001 is better than $100k.
If the lawyers don't accept this, they're bullshitting about the strong case. However if they're legally not allowed to do this. Think of it in the following way.
This is a typical "bird in hand" dilemma easily solved by logic. Is the 2mil - 50k fees branch multiplied by the likelihood of payout higher than 100k? If yes, file suit. If not, take the 100k.
Indeed, but this will also be the first time since the great depression that people may lose confidence in the US dollar, in addition to the increased stability of alternate currencies i.e. euro and yuan. We'll see what happens though... I just can't wait for the US to print the $1000 note;) Think they'll put Bush on as its face?
You really think its the lefties that have the shack in the woods? Or the crazy gun-toting righties? The lefties have a commune in San Francisco and share an internet collection.
Let's go ask the Montana Freemen what they think of those damn hippies and see who really lives in the shack.
Did you read the whole thread? there are plenty of pissed off responsible people. This is the inherent argument of libertarianism. Responsibility for one's own actions.
I'm pissed too, but I don't own a car - where's my credit? Oh wait, its in a country where the government does its best to pander to corporate interests and doesn't show the slightest concern for the citizenry when a conflict between business and civil interest occurs. Until of course its too late at which point the burden ends up on the shoulders of the people to save both themselves and corporate America. Smart. Hopefully the government is able to flip their equity stake in the financial institutions for a profit after the problems stabilize and then refund the taxpayers (or at least pay down the debt so that the US won't experience prolonged high inflation rates).
Also - on the note of this costing taxpayer money, there's still the idea of taxes. (this is the lowest subsidy case analysis) A $1500 credit on a $20000 car is 7.5%. This will more than be made up for in taxes in most area regardless of where the profits end up. Also, people who trade in newer cars are probably more likely to buy more expensive new ones. So all in all the US government at large probably won't lose crazy amounts of money on a scheme like this no matter which make of car the consumer buys.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing you were gonna cash in on a 50k+ bonus from AIG?
Would it have been better to allow AIG to fall into chapter 13, break every contract anyways, and assassinate the worlds' equity markets? Unique situations like this require unique solutions and the president is doing a damn good job so far of fixing what was retardedly allowed under Clinton and Bush (i.e. the securitization of high risk debt, reinsured to be investment grade securities).
What happened earlier is Mugatu got a hold of the financial system (crap wrapped in tin foil sold to the queen). This whole asset class came out of no where fast and grew to monstrous proportions. As these assets devalue it takes the bottom out of the entire system. High finance is a small world - everyone knows everyone and people who understand what happened are needed to fix it. You are clearly not one of them.
The underlying problem is not one of conspiracy theories. Its one of plain responsibility. Execs need to fix what they broke, not profit from their breaking it, and step out once they've fixed it. How do you get them to do that? reward them when its done.
Perhaps a better idea would be to halt the bonuses (let them accumulate) until the system is back on its feet. People that perform well fixing the thing will get their payout... after all is running smoothly again in a few years. Step out early? no money.
Total War won't break out over this. Its a minor patent dispute. Not worth fighting tooth and nail over. Also, TomTom doesn't have to worry too much since its Dutch company (EU folks) - microsoft will think twice about retribution because of the way having its ass handed to it over here where the playing field is a little more level.
Now, this is why doing business in the US is getting to be more and more expensive, and is stifling innovation. If this legal quagmire continues the US will lose its competitive edge as it did in manufacturing and is currently doing so in finance. The law is not only going to kill technical innovation but business innovation as well.
Luckily its still the easiest country to start a company in, as well as has pretty decent tax and labor laws (beneficial to companies).
Downside to labor... ya'll are expensive.
Hmm, if you think an MBA is easy (or even just easier), you should go do one at a top-20 school. Equations aren't hard. Applying them is.
Hence why in my (successful) job hunting, I never go through hiring managers. The job of ALL hr departments is to rule candidates out. Not rule them in. So my tip: if you see a hiring manager in your path to getting a job, go around him, under him, over him or trample him on your way to the guy who can really help get you the job.
Of course the extreme example above might have several valid claims as to why to reject a person, most of the time someone finds "objectionable" content about a candidate on the net its because of a bias against a particular behavior. Such as a Mormon hiring manager seeing a photo of a candidate in a pub, or a pro-life hiring manager finding a picture of the candidate at a pro-choice rally.
umm not that much more? GM pays a 16% premium over what Toyota pays. Any company would dance in the streets if they could get that kind of a cut out of their labor costs.
credentials are definitely overpraised. overpriced too. mine include a toptier MBA which enables one to make seemingly reasonable, statistically provable, and empirically subjective arguments to convince the masses that they need to consume more. Consider me the worst kind - a nerd in a suit ;)
Umm, you didn't specify if your life had improved or degraded. I will assume improved, afterall who wouldn't want to hang out with a bunch of nerds who all have an opinion but no credentials to fall back on.
You should look into professional documentation writing companies that are specialized in applying authoring structures to your information. Usually what happens is a text writer will sit with you to create the structure and then fill it in with your input. You would be surprised at how effective this is, for you and the user. They help you select the correct medium that best for the user. Also, remember, you're not documenting this for yourself, but for the person who will be following the instructions. Job security is moot in this situation - they hire you for your effectiveness at implementing the solutions. I used to work with a Netherlands based company that did this www.landl.com Its not cheap, but it gives excellent results.
Sure, except they're stepping on the toes of the legally blind. This will be an interesting fight if the ACLU gets called.
One label walks, ITMS is fine
All labels walk, ITMS is dead.
Apple won't start a music label for the following reasons:
Its not their core business - (appears to be a logical step but itunes faciliatates sales of ipods and other apple gear). Apple might be able to hire the skills but it doesn't match their business strategy
It would be business suicide. Once apple start competing with labels, they'll pull their libraries and Apple will lose their entire competitive edge in the market being able to offer only new stuff
It would in the long run make them uncool. Apple would turn into "the man" as other labels scramble emulate them. Eventually apple will be just another label.
you have to remember - apple is in the business of making money NOT doing whats necessarily benevolent for the consumer. Bad to say it that way but its reality. Apple ultimately answers to shareholders and shareholders don't care about RIAA conflicts if it doesn't impact their shareprice.
with C and K you get quantum pr0n...
and then you can get your protons off.
If a lawyer thought there was a really strong case, wouldn't you just tell them "take as much as you think is fair of the final judgement as long as I end up with more than 100k" $100,001 is better than $100k. If the lawyers don't accept this, they're bullshitting about the strong case. However if they're legally not allowed to do this. Think of it in the following way. This is a typical "bird in hand" dilemma easily solved by logic. Is the 2mil - 50k fees branch multiplied by the likelihood of payout higher than 100k? If yes, file suit. If not, take the 100k.
Indeed, but this will also be the first time since the great depression that people may lose confidence in the US dollar, in addition to the increased stability of alternate currencies i.e. euro and yuan. We'll see what happens though... I just can't wait for the US to print the $1000 note ;) Think they'll put Bush on as its face?
You really think its the lefties that have the shack in the woods? Or the crazy gun-toting righties? The lefties have a commune in San Francisco and share an internet collection. Let's go ask the Montana Freemen what they think of those damn hippies and see who really lives in the shack.
Did you read the whole thread? there are plenty of pissed off responsible people. This is the inherent argument of libertarianism. Responsibility for one's own actions. I'm pissed too, but I don't own a car - where's my credit? Oh wait, its in a country where the government does its best to pander to corporate interests and doesn't show the slightest concern for the citizenry when a conflict between business and civil interest occurs. Until of course its too late at which point the burden ends up on the shoulders of the people to save both themselves and corporate America. Smart. Hopefully the government is able to flip their equity stake in the financial institutions for a profit after the problems stabilize and then refund the taxpayers (or at least pay down the debt so that the US won't experience prolonged high inflation rates). Also - on the note of this costing taxpayer money, there's still the idea of taxes. (this is the lowest subsidy case analysis) A $1500 credit on a $20000 car is 7.5%. This will more than be made up for in taxes in most area regardless of where the profits end up. Also, people who trade in newer cars are probably more likely to buy more expensive new ones. So all in all the US government at large probably won't lose crazy amounts of money on a scheme like this no matter which make of car the consumer buys.