No, it is not complicated at all. Some posters are throwing up smoke and mirrors to make it sound complicated, so that they can imply that Caldbeck is entitled to "rights" that do not exist, and whine about it.
His unprofessional conduct...
Whats the simple definition of that? Oh thats right... its simply whatever you've decided is unprofessional.
As a practical matter it is very simple. Your opinion does not matter. My opinion does not matter. Caldbeck's opinion does not matter. The six accusers' opinion does not matter. What matters is the opinion of Caldbeck's boss at Binary Capital.
Unless Caldbeck has specific language in his contract about termination conditions, his boss could have strolled over to HR, said that s/he had "lost confidence in Calbeck", and HR would put together the paperwork for dismissal without cause (since CA is an at will employment state). Caldbeck has no right to demand a reason for his job ending at all.
Reading between the lines, Caldbeck probably saw the writing on the wall and realized that resignation was the least bad path.
Everything else you have to say is just smoke and mirrors, and not worthy of comment, because you are too dishonest and dumb to make a logical point.
Temporary relief may be all the relief a person needs, if then they are able to relax, get some sleep, and again partake of the usual physical activities that keep them healthy. Then they get better on their own (usually).
I am convinced that the non-BS aspect of chiropractic practice is that there are many spinal reflexes (literally wiring of the neurons that automatically cause muscle reactions, e.g. if you step on a tack, you will start pulling your leg back before consciously deciding to do so) that can end up fighting each other continuously. Thus muscle tension begets muscle tension, for indefinite periods of time. Spinal adjustment shocks these neurons to temporary confusion, and they let go. For a while. But if the fight does not start up again, then it does not start again. Sometimes.
Of course, part of the problem here is that the back pain may be a lifestyle of bad posture. In that case, the temporary relief is very temporary. It sure can be convenient for the chiropractor's pocketbook to have you come in every two weeks forever, and there are hucksters that groom their patients for that.
The law defines that.
Outside of the law, there are employee behavior rules that define that.
It is really very simple. His unprofessional conduct is an abuse of his employer's trust, implicitly dangling other people's money (the VC fund monies) in front of women as a means to manipulate them into bed with him. Caldbeck did not resign because he cared about being badmouthed by a bunch of women. He resigned because the writing was on the wall that "too much truth" would soon fall into the lap of his boss, and Binary Capital would conclude he was an unnecessary hassle.
What Caldbeck did is probably not illegal. However, it is an abuse of power by which he is implicitly screwing over his employer, using their power and money as leverage to get pussy when he was expected to be lusting for lucre on their behalf 17 hours a day 7 days a week. He resigned because it dawned on him that Binary Capital would learn enough truth to decide he was expendable.
There is no point in doing the research for dumber than fuck trolls. If the "anti-alarmism" argument were serious, then it would be trivial to name one or two criticisms of the report that could be supported with a little googling. If.
A public blockchain that allows validation of transactions/contracts of all kinds is a very powerful concept that provides real value. The "money" aspect is likely to prove garbage, for basically the reasons that you state. Why be tied to someone crappy imaginary currency when I could (someday) use a blockchain kind of technology to move any kind of real money or bullion credit between accounts in a Swiss bank?
In short, the swings in the price of bitcoin are the result of you being born when you were, and not because bitcoin has any sort of inherent instability. If you had been born a few decades later, either you'd see a much larger and more stable bitcoin market, or you'd only ever see the name in the history books.
That right there is most certainly a "sort of inherent instability" -- the fact it is very easy to imagine the value of all bitcoin going to exactly zero in a manner that few other currencies do not suffer from, except for hollywood scenarios involving flesh-eating zombie hordes. It is easy to badmouth real currencies for being imperfect, because they are imperfect. But real currencies have the advantage of being tied to economies in a manner that gives them some significant degree of inherent stability. Bitcoin is untethered from everything in the universe except faddishness and a weaker-than-fiat promise of deflation, by design.
True to a point, but not enough to matter. For example, architecture firms and even movie producers live a world where the majority of proposals fail, but cost some amount of money to put together in the first place. But they are speculating with $1 to earn $10 or $20. They are not spending $19 to gross $20 for a net of $1. Or spending $25 so they can lose $5 instead of $23.
When you look at real world examples, they are not very similar at all.
One of the tricky things here is most of the bitcoin mining is in China. In theory, the Chinese gov't could seize control of bitcoin by taking control of those servers. Now there is no particular reason to believe such will help China so it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, but it is no more farfetched than the usual tinfoil hat theories beloved to the bullion fetishists.
I'm not convinced that it would get bid up to $20. What idiot would enter an auction where the second place bidder still pays but gets nothing in return? Does this situation exist in some context? If you're the only bidder, fine, wager a buck. Otherwise, the only way to win is not to play.
It does not exist in any context other than a party game intended to piss friends off at each other over drinks or employed by a charlatan. So, no, it exists no place in the universe where there are rational and informed actors.
In this world, NASA cuts do not go to the NSF to fund basic research. In fact, savings from NASA are more likely to be scraped together to preserve some DoD boondoggle that should have been axed years ago. Many research scientists see NASA as trying to leverage tie ins to the MIC in order to get some kind of science done, which is expensive PR dollarwise but at least keeps science "relevant" in the public eye. Reasonable people can disagree, but it is not an unreasonable position, given the reality in todays politics.
Indeed. The wise mandarins running the Ottoman Empire correctly saw that a mechanism for cranking a shaft by boiling water could do no better than replace a little boy, who might be employed, say, turning meat on a spit. What is the point of such things when child labor is cheap, and inattention can be discouraged by vicious beatings?
A more serious answer: if were we to ever decide to create a colony on Mars, what resources exist there would matter immensely. For now, we are going to do no such thing in the foreseeable future. But we might if we learned enough about Martian resources to bring the long term price tag down.
Which is why this is the CEO's fault. When the CEO pushes for cost cutting, every manager scrambles to push out important work, so they can make the quarterly bonus; it is silly to criticize manager for doing what they are literally paid extra and patted on the back to do. But there are certain business critical systems that the CEOs must take responsibility for making sure that they are checked thrice on a regular basis. No manager can stand up to a CEO directly or indirectly, because that manager always has other managers incentivized to breath down his/her neck to not rock the boat and jeopardize bonuses.
If the CEO does not put skin in the game, then threats sound like "let's all hope we do not get caught and we will carry on as usual". When a CEO who says earnestly that he/she him/herself will probably be fired but you definitely will be if this backup not work, that will get attention. Everything else is just CYA blather.
Your points all make sense, but we should consider that cultural shifts have increased the number of US workers who want work, by bringing more women into the work force than was the norm in the past. So a similar employment rate now does not necessarily mean the same thing as in the past.
Prohibitions against discrimination by private citizens were a mistake... the road to hell and all that.
Waiting for the individual state gov'ts and individual county gov'ts and individual city gov'ts to do the right thing and live up to their obligations under the Constitution was a failed experiment for decade after decade after decade. The price of continued rampant discrimination was simply too high. Widespread business discrimination were proven as effective in working hand in hand to maintain a system of widespread government discrimination. The whole swamp needed to be drained, instead of putting a bandaid on the literally millions of wrong individual actions.
The great challenge of the 21st century may well be how to manage an aging workforce that cannot produce stronger than 1%-2% GDP growth. Many many assumptions from the past may not serve us.
The problem is that people cherry pick anecdotal data and paint whatever picture they want. Someone who buys two $60 video games per year, but does not go out to movies is arguably frugal, by the norms of American society. Someone who has a very nice used smart phone but is careful with the choice of data plan and does not have cable is arguably frugal. Someone who has a nice mountain bike, but a crappy old car is arguably frugal.
But the geezers (people my age or older) see the nice bike or a nice phone, and assume the movies and the premium cable and the vacations in Baja are there, too, when very often they are not. In fact, it is clear to me that there are many geezers who like to whine about these youngsters, when quite a few of these youngsters are more frugal than they ever were.
The fact there are indeed a few ridiculous spendthrifts in every generation does not seem worthy of comment. Such does not prove anything that matters.
It's very appealing because you don't have to be more clever, richer, more virtuous, more experienced, skilled or really anything to feel superior to whole swathes of the population. You simply have to be older, which is free and easy.
Actually, I am quite certain that becoming such a narrow-minded prick as to belittle large swaths of the population on such little anecdotal data took years and years of practice, but you are too young and inexperienced to appreciate such things.
If you stuffed you money in a mattress and forgot about it, yes, you are right. But there are many ways to lose 50+% of your value over the long haul. We have excellent banks in this country, that can at least hedge against inflation for effectively zero risk, and can do a bit better than inflation for most decades for a very small risk. For bitcoin, we have MtGox and similar, right?
But I'd say it's a whole lot more than just a bit of speculation at this point, it's 24/7 accusations, detractors looking zealously for any way to get trump out of office but where so far any actual evidence is minuscule and most of it seems based on hearsay and rumor So far.
Some detractors are going silly, yes. But I do not own that. Just like people who disliked Obama do not have to first answer for the many racist weirdos who said out loud that he was a secret Muslim born in another country who hated America.
That the Trump Administration deserves, nay, requires careful investigation at this point is a conclusion that all honest people agree to. What or whether anything substantial will come of that investigation...I dunno.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but how come you made it so complicated?
No, it is not complicated at all. Some posters are throwing up smoke and mirrors to make it sound complicated, so that they can imply that Caldbeck is entitled to "rights" that do not exist, and whine about it.
His unprofessional conduct...
Whats the simple definition of that? Oh thats right... its simply whatever you've decided is unprofessional.
As a practical matter it is very simple. Your opinion does not matter. My opinion does not matter. Caldbeck's opinion does not matter. The six accusers' opinion does not matter. What matters is the opinion of Caldbeck's boss at Binary Capital.
Unless Caldbeck has specific language in his contract about termination conditions, his boss could have strolled over to HR, said that s/he had "lost confidence in Calbeck", and HR would put together the paperwork for dismissal without cause (since CA is an at will employment state). Caldbeck has no right to demand a reason for his job ending at all.
Reading between the lines, Caldbeck probably saw the writing on the wall and realized that resignation was the least bad path.
Everything else you have to say is just smoke and mirrors, and not worthy of comment, because you are too dishonest and dumb to make a logical point.
Apparently, you treasure your precious victimhood.
Temporary relief may be all the relief a person needs, if then they are able to relax, get some sleep, and again partake of the usual physical activities that keep them healthy. Then they get better on their own (usually).
I am convinced that the non-BS aspect of chiropractic practice is that there are many spinal reflexes (literally wiring of the neurons that automatically cause muscle reactions, e.g. if you step on a tack, you will start pulling your leg back before consciously deciding to do so) that can end up fighting each other continuously. Thus muscle tension begets muscle tension, for indefinite periods of time. Spinal adjustment shocks these neurons to temporary confusion, and they let go. For a while. But if the fight does not start up again, then it does not start again. Sometimes.
Of course, part of the problem here is that the back pain may be a lifestyle of bad posture. In that case, the temporary relief is very temporary. It sure can be convenient for the chiropractor's pocketbook to have you come in every two weeks forever, and there are hucksters that groom their patients for that.
If you really need to work in an environment where there are no dating prospects to feel comfortable, it is a safe bet the problem is you.
"it was an abuse of his position"
You don't get to define that.
The law defines that. Outside of the law, there are employee behavior rules that define that.
It is really very simple. His unprofessional conduct is an abuse of his employer's trust, implicitly dangling other people's money (the VC fund monies) in front of women as a means to manipulate them into bed with him. Caldbeck did not resign because he cared about being badmouthed by a bunch of women. He resigned because the writing was on the wall that "too much truth" would soon fall into the lap of his boss, and Binary Capital would conclude he was an unnecessary hassle.
What Caldbeck did is probably not illegal. However, it is an abuse of power by which he is implicitly screwing over his employer, using their power and money as leverage to get pussy when he was expected to be lusting for lucre on their behalf 17 hours a day 7 days a week. He resigned because it dawned on him that Binary Capital would learn enough truth to decide he was expendable.
There is no point in doing the research for dumber than fuck trolls. If the "anti-alarmism" argument were serious, then it would be trivial to name one or two criticisms of the report that could be supported with a little googling. If.
Yours is the stronger Sarcasm Fu!
Isn't that Unobtainium you are thinking of?
A public blockchain that allows validation of transactions/contracts of all kinds is a very powerful concept that provides real value. The "money" aspect is likely to prove garbage, for basically the reasons that you state. Why be tied to someone crappy imaginary currency when I could (someday) use a blockchain kind of technology to move any kind of real money or bullion credit between accounts in a Swiss bank?
In short, the swings in the price of bitcoin are the result of you being born when you were, and not because bitcoin has any sort of inherent instability. If you had been born a few decades later, either you'd see a much larger and more stable bitcoin market, or you'd only ever see the name in the history books.
That right there is most certainly a "sort of inherent instability" -- the fact it is very easy to imagine the value of all bitcoin going to exactly zero in a manner that few other currencies do not suffer from, except for hollywood scenarios involving flesh-eating zombie hordes. It is easy to badmouth real currencies for being imperfect, because they are imperfect. But real currencies have the advantage of being tied to economies in a manner that gives them some significant degree of inherent stability. Bitcoin is untethered from everything in the universe except faddishness and a weaker-than-fiat promise of deflation, by design.
True to a point, but not enough to matter. For example, architecture firms and even movie producers live a world where the majority of proposals fail, but cost some amount of money to put together in the first place. But they are speculating with $1 to earn $10 or $20. They are not spending $19 to gross $20 for a net of $1. Or spending $25 so they can lose $5 instead of $23.
When you look at real world examples, they are not very similar at all.
One of the tricky things here is most of the bitcoin mining is in China. In theory, the Chinese gov't could seize control of bitcoin by taking control of those servers. Now there is no particular reason to believe such will help China so it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, but it is no more farfetched than the usual tinfoil hat theories beloved to the bullion fetishists.
Please mod parent up, for providing specifics that give context.
I'm not convinced that it would get bid up to $20. What idiot would enter an auction where the second place bidder still pays but gets nothing in return? Does this situation exist in some context? If you're the only bidder, fine, wager a buck. Otherwise, the only way to win is not to play.
It does not exist in any context other than a party game intended to piss friends off at each other over drinks or employed by a charlatan. So, no, it exists no place in the universe where there are rational and informed actors.
In a more perfect world, you might be right.
In this world, NASA cuts do not go to the NSF to fund basic research. In fact, savings from NASA are more likely to be scraped together to preserve some DoD boondoggle that should have been axed years ago. Many research scientists see NASA as trying to leverage tie ins to the MIC in order to get some kind of science done, which is expensive PR dollarwise but at least keeps science "relevant" in the public eye. Reasonable people can disagree, but it is not an unreasonable position, given the reality in todays politics.
Indeed. The wise mandarins running the Ottoman Empire correctly saw that a mechanism for cranking a shaft by boiling water could do no better than replace a little boy, who might be employed, say, turning meat on a spit. What is the point of such things when child labor is cheap, and inattention can be discouraged by vicious beatings?
A more serious answer: if were we to ever decide to create a colony on Mars, what resources exist there would matter immensely. For now, we are going to do no such thing in the foreseeable future. But we might if we learned enough about Martian resources to bring the long term price tag down.
Which is why this is the CEO's fault. When the CEO pushes for cost cutting, every manager scrambles to push out important work, so they can make the quarterly bonus; it is silly to criticize manager for doing what they are literally paid extra and patted on the back to do. But there are certain business critical systems that the CEOs must take responsibility for making sure that they are checked thrice on a regular basis. No manager can stand up to a CEO directly or indirectly, because that manager always has other managers incentivized to breath down his/her neck to not rock the boat and jeopardize bonuses.
If the CEO does not put skin in the game, then threats sound like "let's all hope we do not get caught and we will carry on as usual". When a CEO who says earnestly that he/she him/herself will probably be fired but you definitely will be if this backup not work, that will get attention. Everything else is just CYA blather.
Your points all make sense, but we should consider that cultural shifts have increased the number of US workers who want work, by bringing more women into the work force than was the norm in the past. So a similar employment rate now does not necessarily mean the same thing as in the past.
Prohibitions against discrimination by private citizens were a mistake ... the road to hell and all that.
Waiting for the individual state gov'ts and individual county gov'ts and individual city gov'ts to do the right thing and live up to their obligations under the Constitution was a failed experiment for decade after decade after decade. The price of continued rampant discrimination was simply too high. Widespread business discrimination were proven as effective in working hand in hand to maintain a system of widespread government discrimination. The whole swamp needed to be drained, instead of putting a bandaid on the literally millions of wrong individual actions.
Someone mod this guy up, please.
The great challenge of the 21st century may well be how to manage an aging workforce that cannot produce stronger than 1%-2% GDP growth. Many many assumptions from the past may not serve us.
The problem is that people cherry pick anecdotal data and paint whatever picture they want. Someone who buys two $60 video games per year, but does not go out to movies is arguably frugal, by the norms of American society. Someone who has a very nice used smart phone but is careful with the choice of data plan and does not have cable is arguably frugal. Someone who has a nice mountain bike, but a crappy old car is arguably frugal.
But the geezers (people my age or older) see the nice bike or a nice phone, and assume the movies and the premium cable and the vacations in Baja are there, too, when very often they are not. In fact, it is clear to me that there are many geezers who like to whine about these youngsters, when quite a few of these youngsters are more frugal than they ever were.
The fact there are indeed a few ridiculous spendthrifts in every generation does not seem worthy of comment. Such does not prove anything that matters.
It's very appealing because you don't have to be more clever, richer, more virtuous, more experienced, skilled or really anything to feel superior to whole swathes of the population. You simply have to be older, which is free and easy.
Actually, I am quite certain that becoming such a narrow-minded prick as to belittle large swaths of the population on such little anecdotal data took years and years of practice, but you are too young and inexperienced to appreciate such things.
If you stuffed you money in a mattress and forgot about it, yes, you are right. But there are many ways to lose 50+% of your value over the long haul. We have excellent banks in this country, that can at least hedge against inflation for effectively zero risk, and can do a bit better than inflation for most decades for a very small risk. For bitcoin, we have MtGox and similar, right?
But I'd say it's a whole lot more than just a bit of speculation at this point, it's 24/7 accusations, detractors looking zealously for any way to get trump out of office but where so far any actual evidence is minuscule and most of it seems based on hearsay and rumor So far.
Some detractors are going silly, yes. But I do not own that. Just like people who disliked Obama do not have to first answer for the many racist weirdos who said out loud that he was a secret Muslim born in another country who hated America.
That the Trump Administration deserves, nay, requires careful investigation at this point is a conclusion that all honest people agree to. What or whether anything substantial will come of that investigation...I dunno.