If the government is stupid enough to bail out a bank which is broke because they have next to no customers (the opposite of too big to fail), then that's not really a problem with the bank...
It's just like all credit ratings. You don't get a good credit rating by saving money and not getting into debt. You get a good credit rating by borrowing a lot and repaying it, borrowing more, repaying it, and so on and so on.
And the effective yield isn't -20% to -40%, more complete bullshit. The dollar would be worth less than zero in a just a few years for that scenario to be accurate..
Maybe learn to read then? Since no body claimed that.
Stating that the USD has falled -20% to -40% over the last few years isn't saying the yield is -20% to -40% since the yield is the yearly change, not the few years change.
Here you go, over the last few (8 in this case) years:
The US dollar index has gone from about 120 to about 75 - so -38%
The USD vs AUD has gone from about 1.5 to about 0.95 - so -37%
The USD vs JPY has gone from about 117 too about 79 - so -32%
All in that -20% to -40% range.
Considering inflation and depreciation, plus tax advantages, bonds basically preserve the purchasing power of money, they don't grow it, nor radically reduce it.
So take an Australian who bought $10,000 worth of US bonds 7 years ago. They paid AUD$15,000 for them. They are now worth AUD$9,500. But inflation in Australia from 2003 to 2010 (the RBA calculator is yearly so that will have to do for Sep 2003 - Aug 2011) is 21.7%. So in order to preserve their AUD$15,000 then they would need to have AUD$18,200. So they lost 48% of their purchasing power. US treasury interest rates in 2003 do not make up for that.
I would call that a radicall reduction in purchasing power.
Please show me a packed junk mortgage rated higher than a US treasury. At the same time obviously.
And no, if US bonds become worthless, everything else doesn't. Lots of things have only a minor influence (if any) from US bonds. Unless of course you think the US will start lobbing nukes and conventional weapons around in order to get the stuff that it currently gets by throwing around worthless bits of paper - that would screw everything up.
The GOP doesn't decide if other people/countries/institutions will loan money to the US.
At some point no one will loan you money at an interest rate you can afford.
Of course the US will just change from a culture of borrowing to a culture of printing - since the government has shown that raising taxes or reducing spending is an impossible task for them.
So their customers move to other banks and they go bankrupt. Or they eat it by paying fewer/smaller bonuses for a couple of years and keep their customers and stay in business.
Yeah. They should just create less actual game content and instead require you to get through 15 levels of tetris in order to move an item in your inventory. You'd get to spend way more time playing their $60 game then.
Well, no, it doesn't prevent them from using GMail at all, but it does prevent them from using GMail to communicate with a student. You can't just focus on the wording of a particular sentence, removed from context. You have to look at the whole of the Bill. That's how laws work. A judge, when interpreting a law, doesn't isolate a single sentence and try to extract the law's meaning from it on its own. Yes, individual sentences and their wording have meaning, but so does context. The Bill is about sexual misconduct between teachers and students, and that particular section is about private communication.
Sure if your law makers are incompetent and want to let judges work out what they meant instead of using equally simple language which says what they actually mean. In this case stating that any website which "allows" communication is not allowed, but instead stating that the communication is not allowed.
That's exactly the point. Keep the communication out in the open, not hidden away. Let me ask you this? What possible legitimate reason can there be for a teacher to send an email to a student that she or he doesn't want either the administration or the student's parents to know about?
Because the student is their younger 16 year old sibling who once attended the school the fresh out of college teacher is teaching at, and they are discussing the younger sibling's struggles with homosexuality (or just having a private discussion)?
Sure a very special case, but I wasn't arguing about that I was arguing about the extremely broad rule the text states.
I can't see how that second sentence doesn't ban teachers from using gmail. At least one current or former student likely has a gmail account. You can send an email that is private communication. Gmail is a website. It allows that exclusive access. Hence teachers can't use it.
No it wouldn't. If the telex box does it's stuff - easily observable by looking at the incoming and outgoing traffic to it - then you kill that session and send the thugs.
For each sale of an App, we will pay you a royalty ("Royalty") equal to the greater of (i) 70% of the purchase price or (ii) 20% of the List Price
Of course "List Price" becomes 0 when they do it as a Free App of the Day, unlike other times where they set the price at something below your list price.
The article isn't claiming that Amazon conned them out of their money, or that Amazon wasn't up front about them getting nothing for accepting to be the free app of the day. Their complaint is that impression before the make the offer is that if they make your app free you'll be getting 20% of the list still and that's the impression amazon app store users have too.
Yeah right, after all that huge effort to get ISPs in variouss places to spend money installing something their own customers don't use, the censoring government just aquires that hardware themselves and drops everything that it detects having "telex" crap in it (and sends the thugs to kick down the door of the guy sending the request).
Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.
So if you are a teacher at a school that your child has ever attended you can't be use such websites with your own child?
A young teacher who happens to teach at the school their younger sibling attends/attended?
If I have a gmail account and somebody else has a gmail account, I can send them an email, does that trigger "exclusive access"?
Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child’s legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian.
Hope no school uses a web based system for storing exam questions, or leave requests, or pay stubs, or disciplinary action tracking, or managing software licenses, or whatever...
Reminds me of a story from long ago now when the Department of Education (https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/) added a policy that required school Principals to report suspected sexual relationships to the department (regardless of the validity of the suspicions - they basically wanted to centralize the data) which was worded to include all students in the department not just students at the Principal's school. So one Principal had to report himself, because his wife enrolled in a TAFE class, making her a student according to the stupid policy
Surely the sentence the article writer is concerned about still applies though. School districts are required to define their policies but then there are two already defined rules encoded in the law itself. Why would those two not apply?
You buy 100 million tickets, which is essentially what is happening here. Just made easier because you don't need to win the jackpot itself and hence don't need quite as much capital.
Slashdot Mirror
If the government is stupid enough to bail out a bank which is broke because they have next to no customers (the opposite of too big to fail), then that's not really a problem with the bank...
Because it is for US citizens/residents, and corporations are people right?
It's just like all credit ratings. You don't get a good credit rating by saving money and not getting into debt. You get a good credit rating by borrowing a lot and repaying it, borrowing more, repaying it, and so on and so on.
The US is king of that game.
And the effective yield isn't -20% to -40%, more complete bullshit. The dollar would be worth less than zero in a just a few years for that scenario to be accurate..
Maybe learn to read then? Since no body claimed that.
Stating that the USD has falled -20% to -40% over the last few years isn't saying the yield is -20% to -40% since the yield is the yearly change, not the few years change.
Here you go, over the last few (8 in this case) years:
The US dollar index has gone from about 120 to about 75 - so -38%
The USD vs AUD has gone from about 1.5 to about 0.95 - so -37%
The USD vs JPY has gone from about 117 too about 79 - so -32%
All in that -20% to -40% range.
Considering inflation and depreciation, plus tax advantages, bonds basically preserve the purchasing power of money, they don't grow it, nor radically reduce it.
So take an Australian who bought $10,000 worth of US bonds 7 years ago. They paid AUD$15,000 for them. They are now worth AUD$9,500. But inflation in Australia from 2003 to 2010 (the RBA calculator is yearly so that will have to do for Sep 2003 - Aug 2011) is 21.7%. So in order to preserve their AUD$15,000 then they would need to have AUD$18,200. So they lost 48% of their purchasing power. US treasury interest rates in 2003 do not make up for that.
I would call that a radicall reduction in purchasing power.
Please show me a packed junk mortgage rated higher than a US treasury. At the same time obviously.
And no, if US bonds become worthless, everything else doesn't. Lots of things have only a minor influence (if any) from US bonds. Unless of course you think the US will start lobbing nukes and conventional weapons around in order to get the stuff that it currently gets by throwing around worthless bits of paper - that would screw everything up.
The GOP doesn't decide if other people/countries/institutions will loan money to the US.
At some point no one will loan you money at an interest rate you can afford.
Of course the US will just change from a culture of borrowing to a culture of printing - since the government has shown that raising taxes or reducing spending is an impossible task for them.
from a mathematician with a few dozen published papers and half a dozen published books on mathematics.
So now you ask slashdot just to make sure???
They aren't claiming copyright, so that's irrelevant.
So their customers move to other banks and they go bankrupt. Or they eat it by paying fewer/smaller bonuses for a couple of years and keep their customers and stay in business.
Yeah. They should just create less actual game content and instead require you to get through 15 levels of tetris in order to move an item in your inventory. You'd get to spend way more time playing their $60 game then.
Pretty much everyone who reads the article.
because if they owned the damn things they can't be sued for violating them.
Surely that is simply fucking obvious.
For which they'd have to pay an order of magnitude more for, possibly more than just trying multiple times and ditching the failures.
And of course no one is going to sign up for it unless the requirement are written in stone at the start. Good luck with getting that to happen.
Try reading just two more sentences...
Sure if your law makers are incompetent and want to let judges work out what they meant instead of using equally simple language which says what they actually mean. In this case stating that any website which "allows" communication is not allowed, but instead stating that the communication is not allowed.
Because the student is their younger 16 year old sibling who once attended the school the fresh out of college teacher is teaching at, and they are discussing the younger sibling's struggles with homosexuality (or just having a private discussion)?
Sure a very special case, but I wasn't arguing about that I was arguing about the extremely broad rule the text states.
It's a law, wording is extremely important.
I can't see how that second sentence doesn't ban teachers from using gmail. At least one current or former student likely has a gmail account. You can send an email that is private communication. Gmail is a website. It allows that exclusive access. Hence teachers can't use it.
No it wouldn't. If the telex box does it's stuff - easily observable by looking at the incoming and outgoing traffic to it - then you kill that session and send the thugs.
There is no claim of value in the first place.
Item 2 in the Developer License Agreement,
For each sale of an App, we will pay you a royalty ("Royalty") equal to the greater of (i) 70% of the purchase price or (ii) 20% of the List Price
Of course "List Price" becomes 0 when they do it as a Free App of the Day, unlike other times where they set the price at something below your list price.
The article isn't claiming that Amazon conned them out of their money, or that Amazon wasn't up front about them getting nothing for accepting to be the free app of the day. Their complaint is that impression before the make the offer is that if they make your app free you'll be getting 20% of the list still and that's the impression amazon app store users have too.
Yeah right, after all that huge effort to get ISPs in variouss places to spend money installing something their own customers don't use, the censoring government just aquires that hardware themselves and drops everything that it detects having "telex" crap in it (and sends the thugs to kick down the door of the guy sending the request).
Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.
So if you are a teacher at a school that your child has ever attended you can't be use such websites with your own child?
A young teacher who happens to teach at the school their younger sibling attends/attended?
If I have a gmail account and somebody else has a gmail account, I can send them an email, does that trigger "exclusive access"?
Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child’s legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian.
Hope no school uses a web based system for storing exam questions, or leave requests, or pay stubs, or disciplinary action tracking, or managing software licenses, or whatever...
Reminds me of a story from long ago now when the Department of Education (https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/) added a policy that required school Principals to report suspected sexual relationships to the department (regardless of the validity of the suspicions - they basically wanted to centralize the data) which was worded to include all students in the department not just students at the Principal's school. So one Principal had to report himself, because his wife enrolled in a TAFE class, making her a student according to the stupid policy
Surely the sentence the article writer is concerned about still applies though. School districts are required to define their policies but then there are two already defined rules encoded in the law itself. Why would those two not apply?
You mean aside from being completely different?
You buy 100 million tickets, which is essentially what is happening here. Just made easier because you don't need to win the jackpot itself and hence don't need quite as much capital.
also patents != copyrights