No, it was not coined to mean an excessive severance package, it was coined to mean, a way out of the flaming wreckage that comes from mergers and bankruptcies.
And yes, it is a preexisting obligation that must be discharged before unsecured debt
Okay! Good. We're done here, nothing more to add after that.
Oh, hey, then all the government needs to do is uphold their part of the bargain is charge him with a crime, and give him a trial. I doubt he signed anything saying that if he was accused of leaking secrets, he could be held without trial and tortured. But, given who he works for and their previous history of torturing people they don't like, he should have known what they would do to him, eh?
Look, the term Golden Parachute refers to protections from bankruptcy. You are in a crashing plane, but you have a parachute, and it is worth a lot of money. The Golden parachute is a pre-existing obligation the company must discharge before unsecured debts. When a company goes into bankruptcy, its assets are be used to pay off as much of its debt as possible, and one of the first things to get paid off is the golden parachute of executives.
Your link points to the FDIC, and only concerns banks operating under FDIC rules. It prohibits them from entering into 'golden parachute' type agreements, if they want FDIC protections. Now ask yourself why the FDIC would need to prohibit their use if they did not, in fact do what I claim.
Back then, the Indians were not considered Americans and had no rights to any protections under the law. But really, you need to go back that far, and stretch the meaning of 'coming to the nuisance' to insane lengths? I would just call that plain old imperialism.
No, the cost of compliance is decidedly NOT tied to the harm of pollution, nor should it be. The fines are punative, they are a punishment. They cost of the fine takes many things into account, including the likelihood of being caught. If nine out of ten offenders will not be caught, in general our law makes the punishment much more harsh, in order to be an effective deterrent. Also, if only one in ten polluters are caught, in order to mitigate the damage, the one that is caught needs to be charged ten times as much. If you have a problem with that, don't break the law and harm others.
Not opinion, fact. I said "given the right conditions" and that could include bioaccumulation, or other sorts of naturally occurring processes that concentrate pollutants, for instance, evaporation of groundwater with 40ppb of a pollutant can leave a very concentrated pollutant.
I'm glad that you can admit your arguments are based on poorly founded assumptions.
Oh come on, it's a joke. I'm not serious. It was meant as good natured ribbing based on the stereotype of the effete latte-sipping bicoastal graphic designer. I do realize that not ALL Apple fanbois are effete, latte-sipping bicoastal graphic designers. In my mind, the joke is as much on the silly stereotype as it is on fanbois.
The only true stereotype about Apple fanbois is that you all have incredibly thin skins.
I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions.
According to 12 CFR 359.1 [Title 12 -- Banks and Banking; Chapter III -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Subchapter B -- Regulations and Statements of General Policy; Part 359 -- Golden Parachute and Indemnification Payments], golden parachute payment means “any payment (or any agreement to make any payment) in the nature of compensation by any insured depository institution or an affiliated depository institution holding company for the benefit of any current or former IAP pursuant to an obligation of such institution or holding company that:
(i) Is contingent on, or by its terms is payable on or after, the termination of such party's primary employment or affiliation with the institution or holding company; and
(ii) Is received on or after, or is made in contemplation of, any of the following events:
(A) The insolvency (or similar event) of the insured depository institution which is making the payment or bankruptcy or insolvency (or similar event) of the depository institution holding company which is making the payment; or
WOW! So, "Golden Parachutes" are actually (among other things) meant to protect executives in the case of bankruptcy.
I just have to ask, why do you bother? I mean, every. single. time. you try to argue with me, you lose. Doesn't it get tiring?
I'm telling you, anything presented with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I can wander into any fucking discussion I want and demand citations. If you can't prove what you are saying, why bother saying it? Maybe that shit flies where you come from, but here at Slashdot, we demand proof of wild accusations. And one final question, who the fuck are you to wander into this thread and tell me what I can and can't do? No one, that's who. Your opinion doesn't matter, and this thread is yesterday's news, it is only the wingnuts like you still commenting.
Everyone keeps saying that, but the term "open source" predates the damn Open Source Initiative by a good many years. That is why they were unable to secure the term "Open Source" as a trademark, making their organization rather useless.
The OSI has always seemed like a ploy by Perens and especially Raymond to claim a position of influence and control they do not deserve. Meanwhile, the real hackers continue to write free and open software, and the people continue to use it, without having any clue as the the activities of the Open Source Initiative.
Ah, a challenge! Let me think, what won't apple fanbois do?
My top ten list of things apple fanbois won't do:
10) Mix plaid and polka dots. 9) Take a calculus class 8) Pay too much for that muffler. 7) Pay anything for that music. 6) Drink fucking Merlot. 5) Listen to Country and Western music in a non-ironic way. 4) Move to a flyover state. 3) Charge a reasonable rate for their "Graphic Design" skills 2) Tip a waiter
And the number one thing apple fanbois won't do? 1) Date a member of the opposite sex.
Badump-CHA! Thank you, I'll be veal all night, and be sure to try the waitress.
It is not even a revolution in branding. The whole free software/open source debate is only an issue in the heads of certain uber-nerds who should really be doing something more constructive with their time. Nobody else cares what we call it.
Show me a case where someone came to the nuisance, and then used legislation to get the nuisance removed.
You don't seem to realize how thresholds work, how they are chosen, and why, so you claim it is arbitrary. But it is your lack of understanding that is the problem. Sure, 75ppb may seem arbitrary, but the number was not picked out of a hat. It takes many, many factors into account, such as how far the pollutant spreads, what other sources are there, whether it bioaccumulates, and how quickly natural processes remove it from the environment.
Ah, look, the 80ppb is not the externality. You've got it so backward I can't even figure out how you got there. The 80ppb is an attempt to fix an externality, the harm that comes from sulfur emissions. It is not that 81ppb creates an externality and 79 does not. That is just stupid, willful ignorance of the way things work, we have many different polluters and we are trying to create a fair cap that will reduce harm overall. The fact is that given the right conditions, even 40ppb can cause problems, and the people that it causes problems for probably won't even realize the problem was caused by sulfur, let alone who emitted the sulfur.
We know that sulfur in the environment causes health problems, as well as another negative externality known as "stench." We have to set an arbitrary limit for sulfur emissions to reduce the externality. It is not the regulation that is the externality! It is a regulation, it is NOT EXTERNAL! Fines are paid, it is not an externality. Remember, an externality is something that is not paid for.
I'm getting bored trying to explain econ 101 to you, trying to argue with a know it all who knows nothing is pointless. Please educate yourself to the point that you can use the language in the same way other people use it, rather than making up definitions in your head. If you have a completely different definition of 'externality' than everyone else, then you and I can not have a rational conversation about externalities.
So what the hell was I using in 1996? Before Bruce and Eric started "promoting" themse... I mean, open source, other people like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds were actually writing it.
So, you admit that your first post on the subject was completely wrong? You can't legally "come to the nuisance" and then whine about it? Thank you for that.
In which cases of regulated pollution has harm NOT been shown? I say, it ha been shown in all cases.
Externalities exist even though value is not objective. If someone is harmed, and the person causing the harm does not have to pay for it, there is an externality. The magnitude of the externality might be open to debate, and certainly, some may cry "harm" when there is none, but that does not negate the existence of externalities as class. You are basically saying, "Harm is not objective," and I agree, but so what? Our legal system still manages to work fairly well regardless.
Corporations are evil by design. They cause huge moral hazards by their very structure of limited liability. It creates a diffusion of responsibility that makes it very easy for people to make very bad, very harmful decisions without having to think too hard about the consequences. We have allowed corporations to amass too much power and control over our society. As major centers of power, corporations attract all the high functioning sociopaths. They are evil, through and through.
I did the homework and found you were lying, and I will provide as much proof as you did supporting your lie. As they say, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The rich can not "buy the law." They can try to buy votes for someone who will enact their laws, but if we are not selling our votes, they will not succeed.
You do not understand how golden parachutes work. They are part of a person's employment contract. The person gets the parachute no matter what, because it is a pre-existing debt, in effect, it is actually an operating expense. A few Enron, World Com, and Tyco executives may have gone to prison, but they did so WITH their golden parachutes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it was not coined to mean an excessive severance package, it was coined to mean, a way out of the flaming wreckage that comes from mergers and bankruptcies.
And yes, it is a preexisting obligation that must be discharged before unsecured debt
Okay! Good. We're done here, nothing more to add after that.
Oh, hey, then all the government needs to do is uphold their part of the bargain is charge him with a crime, and give him a trial. I doubt he signed anything saying that if he was accused of leaking secrets, he could be held without trial and tortured. But, given who he works for and their previous history of torturing people they don't like, he should have known what they would do to him, eh?
Yes, and that is as it should be. Grandfather clauses apply to unmodified facilities, if you modify it you need to bring it up to code.
I recall seeing the term "open source" around long before Eric and Bruce tried to hijack the movement from Stallman.
Look, the term Golden Parachute refers to protections from bankruptcy. You are in a crashing plane, but you have a parachute, and it is worth a lot of money. The Golden parachute is a pre-existing obligation the company must discharge before unsecured debts. When a company goes into bankruptcy, its assets are be used to pay off as much of its debt as possible, and one of the first things to get paid off is the golden parachute of executives.
Your link points to the FDIC, and only concerns banks operating under FDIC rules. It prohibits them from entering into 'golden parachute' type agreements, if they want FDIC protections. Now ask yourself why the FDIC would need to prohibit their use if they did not, in fact do what I claim.
Back then, the Indians were not considered Americans and had no rights to any protections under the law. But really, you need to go back that far, and stretch the meaning of 'coming to the nuisance' to insane lengths? I would just call that plain old imperialism.
No, the cost of compliance is decidedly NOT tied to the harm of pollution, nor should it be. The fines are punative, they are a punishment. They cost of the fine takes many things into account, including the likelihood of being caught. If nine out of ten offenders will not be caught, in general our law makes the punishment much more harsh, in order to be an effective deterrent. Also, if only one in ten polluters are caught, in order to mitigate the damage, the one that is caught needs to be charged ten times as much. If you have a problem with that, don't break the law and harm others.
Not opinion, fact. I said "given the right conditions" and that could include bioaccumulation, or other sorts of naturally occurring processes that concentrate pollutants, for instance, evaporation of groundwater with 40ppb of a pollutant can leave a very concentrated pollutant.
I'm glad that you can admit your arguments are based on poorly founded assumptions.
Oh come on, it's a joke. I'm not serious. It was meant as good natured ribbing based on the stereotype of the effete latte-sipping bicoastal graphic designer. I do realize that not ALL Apple fanbois are effete, latte-sipping bicoastal graphic designers. In my mind, the joke is as much on the silly stereotype as it is on fanbois.
The only true stereotype about Apple fanbois is that you all have incredibly thin skins.
Here is a good paper on the subject. Generally, only modifications that increase pollution void the grandfather clause.
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v101/n4/1677/LR101n4Nash.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute
http://www.irstaxattorney.com/bankruptcy/Golden_Parachute.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/times-mirror-exec-payoffs-revealed-tribune-bankruptcy-filing
http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/07/tribune-co-proposes-severance-packages-for-top-execs-if-they-are-dismissed.html
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/economics/8338-former-wamu-execs-sue-golden-parachutes.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1458937/how_to_cure_the_golden_parachutes.html
But perhaps the best explanation, and the most damning to your case, can be found here:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/golden-parachute-payment/
I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions.
According to 12 CFR 359.1 [Title 12 -- Banks and Banking; Chapter III -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Subchapter B -- Regulations and Statements of General Policy; Part 359 -- Golden Parachute and Indemnification Payments], golden parachute payment means “any payment (or any agreement to make any payment) in the nature of compensation by any insured depository institution or an affiliated depository institution holding company for the benefit of any current or former IAP pursuant to an obligation of such institution or holding company that:
(i) Is contingent on, or by its terms is payable on or after, the termination of such party's primary employment or affiliation with the institution or holding company; and
(ii) Is received on or after, or is made in contemplation of, any of the following events:
(A) The insolvency (or similar event) of the insured depository institution which is making the payment or bankruptcy or insolvency (or similar event) of the depository institution holding company which is making the payment; or
WOW! So, "Golden Parachutes" are actually (among other things) meant to protect executives in the case of bankruptcy.
I just have to ask, why do you bother? I mean, every. single. time. you try to argue with me, you lose. Doesn't it get tiring?
I'm telling you, anything presented with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I can wander into any fucking discussion I want and demand citations. If you can't prove what you are saying, why bother saying it? Maybe that shit flies where you come from, but here at Slashdot, we demand proof of wild accusations. And one final question, who the fuck are you to wander into this thread and tell me what I can and can't do? No one, that's who. Your opinion doesn't matter, and this thread is yesterday's news, it is only the wingnuts like you still commenting.
Everyone keeps saying that, but the term "open source" predates the damn Open Source Initiative by a good many years. That is why they were unable to secure the term "Open Source" as a trademark, making their organization rather useless.
The OSI has always seemed like a ploy by Perens and especially Raymond to claim a position of influence and control they do not deserve. Meanwhile, the real hackers continue to write free and open software, and the people continue to use it, without having any clue as the the activities of the Open Source Initiative.
is there anything Apple fanbois *won't* do?
Ah, a challenge! Let me think, what won't apple fanbois do?
My top ten list of things apple fanbois won't do:
10) Mix plaid and polka dots.
9) Take a calculus class
8) Pay too much for that muffler.
7) Pay anything for that music.
6) Drink fucking Merlot.
5) Listen to Country and Western music in a non-ironic way.
4) Move to a flyover state.
3) Charge a reasonable rate for their "Graphic Design" skills
2) Tip a waiter
And the number one thing apple fanbois won't do?
1) Date a member of the opposite sex.
Badump-CHA! Thank you, I'll be veal all night, and be sure to try the waitress.
It is not even a revolution in branding. The whole free software/open source debate is only an issue in the heads of certain uber-nerds who should really be doing something more constructive with their time. Nobody else cares what we call it.
Show me a case where someone came to the nuisance, and then used legislation to get the nuisance removed.
You don't seem to realize how thresholds work, how they are chosen, and why, so you claim it is arbitrary. But it is your lack of understanding that is the problem. Sure, 75ppb may seem arbitrary, but the number was not picked out of a hat. It takes many, many factors into account, such as how far the pollutant spreads, what other sources are there, whether it bioaccumulates, and how quickly natural processes remove it from the environment.
Ah, look, the 80ppb is not the externality. You've got it so backward I can't even figure out how you got there. The 80ppb is an attempt to fix an externality, the harm that comes from sulfur emissions. It is not that 81ppb creates an externality and 79 does not. That is just stupid, willful ignorance of the way things work, we have many different polluters and we are trying to create a fair cap that will reduce harm overall. The fact is that given the right conditions, even 40ppb can cause problems, and the people that it causes problems for probably won't even realize the problem was caused by sulfur, let alone who emitted the sulfur.
We know that sulfur in the environment causes health problems, as well as another negative externality known as "stench." We have to set an arbitrary limit for sulfur emissions to reduce the externality. It is not the regulation that is the externality! It is a regulation, it is NOT EXTERNAL! Fines are paid, it is not an externality. Remember, an externality is something that is not paid for.
I'm getting bored trying to explain econ 101 to you, trying to argue with a know it all who knows nothing is pointless. Please educate yourself to the point that you can use the language in the same way other people use it, rather than making up definitions in your head. If you have a completely different definition of 'externality' than everyone else, then you and I can not have a rational conversation about externalities.
So what the hell was I using in 1996? Before Bruce and Eric started "promoting" themse... I mean, open source, other people like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds were actually writing it.
Or on you, as the case may be.
L. O. Fucking. L.
I don't know if that was meant to be a joke, but you owe me a new keyboard. Now excuse me, I have to go wash coffee out of my eyebrows.
I'd give you mine but, well, I've spent the last several minutes on 4chan. You probably don't want it now.
You, sir, are a saint, to offer your eyebrows to a stranger like that. Whatever you've got in them will just help them stick better. Kudos to you!
So, you admit that your first post on the subject was completely wrong? You can't legally "come to the nuisance" and then whine about it? Thank you for that.
In which cases of regulated pollution has harm NOT been shown? I say, it ha been shown in all cases.
Externalities exist even though value is not objective. If someone is harmed, and the person causing the harm does not have to pay for it, there is an externality. The magnitude of the externality might be open to debate, and certainly, some may cry "harm" when there is none, but that does not negate the existence of externalities as class. You are basically saying, "Harm is not objective," and I agree, but so what? Our legal system still manages to work fairly well regardless.
Corporations are evil by design. They cause huge moral hazards by their very structure of limited liability. It creates a diffusion of responsibility that makes it very easy for people to make very bad, very harmful decisions without having to think too hard about the consequences. We have allowed corporations to amass too much power and control over our society. As major centers of power, corporations attract all the high functioning sociopaths. They are evil, through and through.
I did the homework and found you were lying, and I will provide as much proof as you did supporting your lie. As they say, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The rich can not "buy the law." They can try to buy votes for someone who will enact their laws, but if we are not selling our votes, they will not succeed.
Actually, grandfather clauses don't work like that, despite what anti-government wing nuts like to claim. Citations or shut up.
That article is blatant pro-America propaganda, and it cites no actual studies. It's complete bullshit.
In our democracy, no one group has unilateral control over anything. If they did, it wouldn't be a democracy.
You do not understand how golden parachutes work. They are part of a person's employment contract. The person gets the parachute no matter what, because it is a pre-existing debt, in effect, it is actually an operating expense. A few Enron, World Com, and Tyco executives may have gone to prison, but they did so WITH their golden parachutes.