As cool as these cars are, they are starting to all look alike.
Physics is a harsh mistress. They tend to look a lot alike because physics combined with the rules of the contest will generally force the designs towards an optimum. In other words they are going to tend to converge on the same general design over time.
The movies are stretched and it shows. They simply didn't have enough plot or action to fill the time and I got fairly bored at times. There are seemingly endless and mostly pointless action scenes that serve no purpose and frankly aren't all that well done either. The special effects were rushed. The dialog they added is insultingly bad. Etc... While I won't say they are horrible money grab movies on the level of say The Phantom Menace, they could have been a LOT better even if they had just spent more time in the editing room. Basically they knew they would be a commercial success so they really didn't try very hard.
LOTR all had battle scenes that took up half the movies that were too long. Songs were not included and plot from the book cut to make room for action and Hollywood.
The Hobbit is worse regarding the action scenes - the ones in LOTR didn't feel nearly as stretched out. And as for the "songs", there are lyrics but no actual music in the books so any music would be contrived. And frankly NOBODY wanted these movies to be a musical. (If you did then you are the only one) I sure as hell didn't go into them wanting to hear a bunch of "music" and I've read the Lord of the Rings probably close to 20 times. That is not what is the really interesting bit about the books - it's more of an intellectual curiosity than anything else that would have been terrible on the big screen.
To be fair Steve Jobs didn't make the transition from startup WizKid very well at all... He got kicked out of his company got ten years... And used the time to seriously adjust his attitude toward his workers/managers.
He did better than most. And you will notice that the company did quite badly once they kicked him out and recovered when he got back. No he didn't get everything right but he's one of the rare founders that was able to make the transition. Most do not.
And by all accounts he was still an ass when he came back. Maybe a more polished ass an ass nonetheless. People overlook it because he got good results.
And yet Israel insists on controlling the territory. They may not get a vote but they ARE Israeli citizens until such time as Israel actually stops trying to control their political processes and truly leaves. Israel conquered the territory, they control what goes in or out and they fairly regularly send their military in. Even the maps show Gaza as a part of Israel. What they have done is to conquer a territory full of people who don't like Israel and never made a secret of that and then treated them badly for a long time. Shocking why things have gone badly.
Since I'm sure you'll mention the naval blockade, So for your information, the blockade was enacted in June 2007, when the Palestinians elected a terrorist organization (Hamas) to lead them, and started firing rockets in to Israel. Btw, right after their election, Hamas eradicated PLO members from the Gaza strip (which were *relatively* moderate muslims), through a series of violent clashes.
Yep, both sides are doing all sorts of evil things to each other. That's what happens in a civil war. Ever consider that a big part of the reason Hamas has such a large voice is because of the decades of stupid decisions by Israel? I totally get that Israel is a bit touchy given that they are surrounded by neighboring nations who have to put it mildly been quite hostile. But this is a conflict that will NEVER be won with bullets or walls. It will be won with cooperation and discussion and genuine caring about others.
So what do you think should be Israel's response to the constant bombing of their country?
Here's a notion. How about trying to win the hearts and minds of the people who aren't trying to bomb Israel and get them on Israel's side? This conflict will NEVER be won by force of arms unless we countenance genocide. If Israel really wants to have a solution they need to listen to what the Palestinians are saying and actually work out a deal. They need to bring economic prosperity to the region and give it a voice in political matters even though the people there aren't Jewish. If they need to establish separate nation states then do that. Stop moving into contested territories. Stop making Gaza an outdoor prison camp. Kindness might work here. Bullets never will.
The fact that Israel hasn't just wiped the country off the map is perplexing to me. It is usually what happens when a weak country continues to poke at a stronger one.
So you are proposing that the Jews commit genocide? Have you forgotten the Holocaust? If ANYONE would be reluctant to do that I should think it would be the Jewish people.
You also have to consider that the Palestinian people as a whole are not Hamas, in the same way the Northern Ireland population were not the IRA.
And yet the Palestinians have not rejected Hamas wholesale either. Obviously a large percentage of the Palestinian people supports Hamas and their goals. Some don't but clearly not enough to clear out the radicals willing to use force. The Israelis for their part are just as bad. They keep electing people who support policies that they know are provocative to the Palestinians and they damn well ought to know what the results of those policies will be by this point.
Hamas started it and reuses to agree to any proposed cease fire.
Doesn't matter who started it. That's an argument that children make to justify their own bad behavior. There is no innocent party here.
Israel isn't the group calling for the extermination, Hamas is.
Israel has turned Gaza into a large open air prison. Many people in Gaza are innocent of any criminal action and yet they are made to suffer along with the terrorists. Israel will not give any voice in government to anyone who is not Jewish. Israel is not remotely being a fair minded party here. They conquered this territory and haven't done a good job of winning hearts and minds. They aren't going to convince the extremists but they could have convinced the more reasonable people to deal with the extremists. There is no evidence I can see that this was ever tried with any serious intent.
Israel has also offered legitimacy to the Palestinian government in exchange for a cease fire and removing the language in the charter to kill all jews.
Hamas is not the Palestinian government. Neither is Fatah which is the other major political group involved. They are roughly akin to political parties with a percentage of their membership (particularly Hamas) who are radical. There are extremists in the Israeli government too and they keep provoking the Palestinians even when it is clearly not a good idea. Neither side is listening to what the other cares about and neither has been willing to do what it will take to bring peace.
Israel never bombed their own citizens, you probably mean Hamas.
The people living in Gaza are not citizens of Israel? They are for all practical purposes since this is territory controlled by Israel. So in real terms how is this anything other than a civil war? Both sides are bombing each other and neither side is willing to be calm or rational. If you ever needed a better example of why I think organized religion is a terrible thing I certainly cannot find it.
Israeli citizens has all the rights that Americans have.
Tell that to the people living in Gaza. I'm sure they'll agree that their "rights" aren't being trampled on in any way and I'm sure they're fine with being kept in what amounts to a large prison camp with walls and guards.
It's a good question and more common than you might think. Part of the problem is that bringing in competent outsiders can be uncomfortable for company founders. Gygax clearly had a problem with involving anyone who was not a wargamer but the people who are competent at finance don't overlap heavily with people who are gamers. Plus when things are going well it is easy to think that you can handle it. After all, it's gone well this far right?
One of the big challenges in growing a company is that the skill sets for founding a company and the skill sets for running it when it gets larger overlap far less than most people think. For every Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos there are thousands of people who simply cannot make the transition from small company founder to big company manager. The founders of Google were actually smart enough to bring in some outside management relatively early because they knew they didn't really have the skillset at the time to manage a company with a stratospheric growth rate. It would be like hiring a guy who has never managed a network larger than 10 computers to suddenly take charge of Amazon's data warehouses. The skills needed are just on a completely different level.
But if Gygax already controlled 51.1%, it doesn't matter how many shares they buy; unless Gygax sold some of his own, they should never have more than 48.9% and thus never have been in a position to oust him.
What you are overlooking is treasury stock and stock warrants. Treasury stock is stock owned by the company itself (often through buybacks) and most companies have some. I'm guessing the options held by the Blume family were in the form of warrants to buy treasury stock (or something very similar). A warrant is a form of an option. When a stock warrant is issued shares for that warrant are created but held by the company until the option is exercised. This means that the shares already existed and were owned by TSR but the Blumes had the right (but not the obligation ) to buy them at a fixed price. Warrants are dilutive so while Gygax held a majority of outstanding shares he did not own a majority of issued shares. Gygax's majority was contingent upon those share not getting exercised. When Gygax declined to buy the shares (he declined his first right of refusal) then they could be exercised and sold and at that point he was no longer a majority shareholder.
The Blume family also exercised options -- which means creating new shares at a price agreed previously.
Not necessarily. The options may have been in the form of warrants which allowed them to purchase existing treasury stock. When a warrant is issued new stock is issued at the same time.
Shouldn't be in general. When your children misbehave or under-perform in school do you have a problem disciplining them? You did set out expectations in advance right? If you didn't then shame on you. Same with going into business with family. Set out expectations right up front and then hold them to those expectations and communicate how they are doing in relation to those expectations. If you do that things usually work out ok.
A sociopath has no problem flipping the switch, to decide that they can ignore the family ties.
Very few people are sociopaths but also too few are good at keeping business and family separate. Business is completely unforgiving of family relationships. The mere fact that someone is family in no way enhances the profits of the company. You can solve a lot of problems by being very clear right up front about how the business relationship will work. This doesn't mean it will necessarily be all kittens and rainbows but if you have a contract up front and live up to that contract then things usually work out fine in the long run. Understand though that there is a non-trivial chance of some seriously ruffled feathers if a family member or friend is performing such that they have to be fired. They are unlikely to be happy about it. But they also usually will forgive if you are simply doing what you said would happen before they started.
You have to be very careful when hiring family. I'm married into a family where the family has had a successful business for three generations stretching over 100 years. It can work fine but it's hard and you have to be VERY clear about how it will work in advance. I haven't gotten involved with the business in part because I recognize the challenges of working closely with family.
Firing a relative or friend has repercussions outside of your business relationship.
Yes it does. Which is why you need to exercise caution when hiring relatives or friends. Just as important you need any appropriate contract outlining the terms of their employment. If things go south (as they sometimes do) then you follow the contract to the letter. I've been business partners with friends and family and we took the time to agree how things would work up front. Some of the businesses didn't work out but they were dissolved amicably because we were clear up front about how things would happen. I'm still on good terms with them because we were honest with each other regarding what we wanted out of the arrangement and how it would work if things went well and if they didn't.
Do you really think that a nasty money fight between friends and relatives with contractual obligations in a business would not affect the personal relationships between them?
Of course it would but you can head most of those issues off by being VERY clear up front about how things will work. Say what you are going to do and then do exactly what you said you would do. If the other party can't deal with that then things were probably doomed from the start. I once had someone I respect a lot give me some very good advice. He said "Never get into a business deal you wouldn't be willing do as a handshake agreement but also never do a business deal where the details aren't spelled out on paper either." If you don't trust someone, don't go into business with them. If you do trust someone, protect yourself from being wrong by proper use of contracts.
I'd love to have an 800+ mile range but no car I've ever owned has ever even teased that (best tank ever 436miles).
Doesn't really matter since you don't have an 800 mile bladder. Unless you plan on wearing diapers while you drive you're going to pull over sometime for, umm... well, you know... and may as well refuel while you do.
Wake me when it has a 500 mile range, can be fully charged in 5 minutes, and will last more than 5 years. Oh, and it has to work in a non-streamlined vehicle like a loaded F-150 pickup.
The only bit of that specification that would be difficult right now in pure electric form would be the 5 minute recharge unless we are talking about battery pack swaps. Nobody has done it yet but it's not actually impossible judging by the range achieved with the Tesla and some others.
Furthermore those specs could easily be done today albeit in hybrid form with better fuel economy, more torque/hp, equal refueling time and it certainly would last more than 5 years baring unexpected malfunction. Might not be cheaper but it is certainly technologically feasible. Honestly I think trucks should be diesel-electric hybrids like trains. Electric motors drive the wheels and get charged by a diesel engine.
If you can see it from public property and tell what it is, it's (effectively) in the public domain, isn't it?
Not necessarily. This isn't the United States. Different laws and customs applied differently. Your normal expectations regarding the law may not apply.
I'd say Google's doing them a favour. If any of their secret installations turn up on it, you know it's time to shut them down or move them.
Yeah... I'm sure that's exactly how they will see it too... [/sarcasm]
Why are they building giant amphibious cargo planes today? Who has that need?
Isn't that sort of a self answering question? Let's break it down. 3/4 of the earth's surface is water and there aren't nice paved roads everywhere there is a need for cargo. Ships are slow, planes are not. Planes that can land on water do not need a prepared runway as any sufficiently large, reasonably calm body of water will suffice if there isn't a traditional runway available. Planes that can land/takeoff from water can be refueled there too meaning they do not have to worry about ditching when over water except in rough weather.
So basically anyone who needs relatively fast long distance transport of cargo to a remote area where there is water but possibly not runways. Describes more than a few places on earth.
Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place?
Depends on the situation. Some people take them out of pure pleasure seeking. Others get addicted to chemicals like opiates as a result of circumstances well beyond their control like surgeries.
Furthermore just because someone made a bad decision doesn't mean we simply abandon them. Maybe you are the one person who has never made a bad choice in life but I doubt it. Sometimes people make bad choices and a civilized society tries to a reasonable degree to help them through it. We're going to pay for it one way or another anyway so why not do the humane thing and help those who are willing to be helped?
If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.
Think so? I can introduce you to some former surgery patients and war veterans among others who were introduced to opiates to control pain by their physicians for very real pain problems and as a result were unable to avoid addiction. I can point you to some suffering from PTSD (not their fault) who are trying to find some way to cope who sometimes turn to chemicals because they don't understand what has happened and it is the only relief they can find before they understand what has happened. Some addictions are not the solely the fault of the person taking the drugs.
It's easy and wrong to paint every drug addict with the same broad brush. Some, like the sort you are thinking of, are simply idiots seeking pleasure or escape. If you are snorting cocaine on your yacht for fun, yeah that's on you and if you die I'm not going to cry a river for you. Others are decent people trying to cope with a real problem not of their own making. You really think that a wounded veteran who gets unintentionally addicted to opiates while trying to control pain is solely responsible for his situation? If so you are a very cold hearted person.
Yes, it is, takes some fucking responsibility for your own actions.
That's delightfully naive of you. You think someone who is taking drugs to get high is somehow going to be interested in increasing their level of responsibility?
I have news for you. People cheat even when there isn't money in it. Money makes the problem worse but it isn't the root of the problem. Some people just want to win, no matter what. Money alone really isn't enough to explain the cheating in high level athletics. It's a factor but not as big as you might assume.
I've competed at the Division 1 college level of athletics for a top tier program in my sport of choice (not cycling). Nobody gets into sport at that level because of money though it might help keep them in it. People compete because they want to win. They want to be the best. That is most of what drives them. Money is just added incentive for those at the very top in select sports. You'll see people get popped for PEDs in sports where there is no money almost as often as in sports where there is money. Few people appreciate just how hard and how much work it is to compete at that level. There are very few people for whom money alone is sufficient motivation to compete at that level. You basically have to torture yourself for years on a daily basis and most people cannot do it.
Drugs can make a difference but only a few percent improvement at best. You could throw a whole pharmacy at me or 99.9999% of people on Earth and we still don't have the physiology to win the Tour de France. You have to be able to get near the top without drugs for the drugs to be able to push you to the top. I've competed and coached my sport for well over 30 years. There is close to no money in the sport but you'll see at least 1 or 2 athletes get popped for PEDs at world level competitions each year. I have good reason to believe most athletes in my sport are clean (PEDs provide a relatively modest performance benefit) but I'm quite certain a few aren't and like I said, money is not really a factor.
Ever since the Olympics went professional, it's been boring.
Maybe to you. Personally I disagree. I want to see the best of the best competing on the most level playing field we can devise. Whether they get paid for it or not is irrelevant to me.
Why? Because you don't play them? I'm sure whatever hobbies you prefer are clearly superior... [/sarcasm]
They are, by default, exclusionary.
Pretty much anyone can play sports so they are by definition not exclusionary. You might not be the best at a given sport but absent an insurmountable physical deficit there is nothing prohibiting your from participation. We even have special competitions like the Special Olympics for those who need a little extra help to participate.
Call me a jerk for not feeling sympathy for the rich, steroid ladened, kids whose parents gave them every advantage in the world suddenly feel disadvantaged.
Ok, you're a jerk. "Rich, steroid ladened kids whose parents give them every advantage"? Seriously? You sound like a pathetic bitter little person with an inferiority complex who needs to denigrate others to make yourself feel superior. Sports are nothing more than games. You don't have to like sports nor do you have to participate but it takes a real asshole to think that because others enjoy a game that those who participate are somehow bad people. The entire point of a game is to have people compete under the same rules as everyone else. Sometimes technology creates advantages that break the game balance and we have to consider whether or not to allow that technology. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Having that discussion does not make you one a jerk but people who criticize the need for the discussion (like you) are jerks.
A fool's drivel repeated often enough will some day end up in the lexicon, especially in the moden age of instant mass communications, but that does not make it correct.
If it is used often enough it DOES make it correct, particularly when it is used that way within a trade. That is how languages are formed in the real world. Not from ivory tower dictates of grammar nazis like yourself.
"Buss" is not a word
Except that it is. It means Kiss according to Webster. It is also a fairly common shortened spelling of a Busbar. Bus is a contraction of the latin word "omnibus", meaning "for all".
This holds true within the electrical trade, as many old-timers frequently write (not type!) "buss" -- I often see it on equipment labels, one-line drawings, etc.,
Then you have contradicted your own argument and it is de-facto correct if it is used that way commonly within the relevant trade.
Let's imagine Amazon runs a script and raises all their prices, every single one of them, by 1% Would anyone notice?
Short answer? Yes they would.
Long answer? 1% is not a trivial price increase when what you are selling is commodities at cutthroat retail prices. Walmart's entire profit margin is just a hair over 3% and nobody thinks they are a failure. Their cost advantage over competitors like Target is whisper thin. Less than 1%. If they raise prices by just 1% they would no longer be the cost leader anymore.
Is 1% even enough to justify looking elsewhere for a product?
On individual items? Mostly not. But over a large enough basket of items and customers? Absolutely yes. They would without question lose some amount of business.
In contrast, the skittish investors yesterday cost the company about $12B compared to the $126M business loss. The skittish investors who cause huge overnight drops like this create opportunities.
Skittish investors didn't cost the company a penny. You will not find the stock price in any profit or loss statement for the company. The day to day fluctuations of the stock market have only a very indirect effect on Amazon's finances. The main thing it matters for is if Amazon were to issue additional stock to the market in the future, they wouldn't raise as much money. It also has a mild effect on their cost of capital.
What this means is that skittish investors cost all Amazon investors $12B in value over a $126M loss for the current period. Probably a bit of an over reaction as you pointed out. The profit or loss here is frankly immaterial. What matters is what investors think of Amazon's prospects going forward. Personally I think Amazon is in a very strong position and they could be profitable tomorrow if they felt the need. I see it as a buying opportunity if anything.
Slashdot Mirror
As cool as these cars are, they are starting to all look alike.
Physics is a harsh mistress. They tend to look a lot alike because physics combined with the rules of the contest will generally force the designs towards an optimum. In other words they are going to tend to converge on the same general design over time.
What's so horrible about The Hobbit?
The movies are stretched and it shows. They simply didn't have enough plot or action to fill the time and I got fairly bored at times. There are seemingly endless and mostly pointless action scenes that serve no purpose and frankly aren't all that well done either. The special effects were rushed. The dialog they added is insultingly bad. Etc... While I won't say they are horrible money grab movies on the level of say The Phantom Menace, they could have been a LOT better even if they had just spent more time in the editing room. Basically they knew they would be a commercial success so they really didn't try very hard.
LOTR all had battle scenes that took up half the movies that were too long. Songs were not included and plot from the book cut to make room for action and Hollywood.
The Hobbit is worse regarding the action scenes - the ones in LOTR didn't feel nearly as stretched out. And as for the "songs", there are lyrics but no actual music in the books so any music would be contrived. And frankly NOBODY wanted these movies to be a musical. (If you did then you are the only one) I sure as hell didn't go into them wanting to hear a bunch of "music" and I've read the Lord of the Rings probably close to 20 times. That is not what is the really interesting bit about the books - it's more of an intellectual curiosity than anything else that would have been terrible on the big screen.
To be fair Steve Jobs didn't make the transition from startup WizKid very well at all... He got kicked out of his company got ten years... And used the time to seriously adjust his attitude toward his workers/managers.
He did better than most. And you will notice that the company did quite badly once they kicked him out and recovered when he got back. No he didn't get everything right but he's one of the rare founders that was able to make the transition. Most do not.
And by all accounts he was still an ass when he came back. Maybe a more polished ass an ass nonetheless. People overlook it because he got good results.
The people in Gaza are not Israeli citizens.
And yet Israel insists on controlling the territory. They may not get a vote but they ARE Israeli citizens until such time as Israel actually stops trying to control their political processes and truly leaves. Israel conquered the territory, they control what goes in or out and they fairly regularly send their military in. Even the maps show Gaza as a part of Israel. What they have done is to conquer a territory full of people who don't like Israel and never made a secret of that and then treated them badly for a long time. Shocking why things have gone badly.
Since I'm sure you'll mention the naval blockade, So for your information, the blockade was enacted in June 2007, when the Palestinians elected a terrorist organization (Hamas) to lead them, and started firing rockets in to Israel. Btw, right after their election, Hamas eradicated PLO members from the Gaza strip (which were *relatively* moderate muslims), through a series of violent clashes.
Yep, both sides are doing all sorts of evil things to each other. That's what happens in a civil war. Ever consider that a big part of the reason Hamas has such a large voice is because of the decades of stupid decisions by Israel? I totally get that Israel is a bit touchy given that they are surrounded by neighboring nations who have to put it mildly been quite hostile. But this is a conflict that will NEVER be won with bullets or walls. It will be won with cooperation and discussion and genuine caring about others.
So what do you think should be Israel's response to the constant bombing of their country?
Here's a notion. How about trying to win the hearts and minds of the people who aren't trying to bomb Israel and get them on Israel's side? This conflict will NEVER be won by force of arms unless we countenance genocide. If Israel really wants to have a solution they need to listen to what the Palestinians are saying and actually work out a deal. They need to bring economic prosperity to the region and give it a voice in political matters even though the people there aren't Jewish. If they need to establish separate nation states then do that. Stop moving into contested territories. Stop making Gaza an outdoor prison camp. Kindness might work here. Bullets never will.
The fact that Israel hasn't just wiped the country off the map is perplexing to me. It is usually what happens when a weak country continues to poke at a stronger one.
So you are proposing that the Jews commit genocide? Have you forgotten the Holocaust? If ANYONE would be reluctant to do that I should think it would be the Jewish people.
You also have to consider that the Palestinian people as a whole are not Hamas, in the same way the Northern Ireland population were not the IRA.
And yet the Palestinians have not rejected Hamas wholesale either. Obviously a large percentage of the Palestinian people supports Hamas and their goals. Some don't but clearly not enough to clear out the radicals willing to use force. The Israelis for their part are just as bad. They keep electing people who support policies that they know are provocative to the Palestinians and they damn well ought to know what the results of those policies will be by this point.
Hamas started it and reuses to agree to any proposed cease fire.
Doesn't matter who started it. That's an argument that children make to justify their own bad behavior. There is no innocent party here.
Israel isn't the group calling for the extermination, Hamas is.
Israel has turned Gaza into a large open air prison. Many people in Gaza are innocent of any criminal action and yet they are made to suffer along with the terrorists. Israel will not give any voice in government to anyone who is not Jewish. Israel is not remotely being a fair minded party here. They conquered this territory and haven't done a good job of winning hearts and minds. They aren't going to convince the extremists but they could have convinced the more reasonable people to deal with the extremists. There is no evidence I can see that this was ever tried with any serious intent.
Israel has also offered legitimacy to the Palestinian government in exchange for a cease fire and removing the language in the charter to kill all jews.
Hamas is not the Palestinian government. Neither is Fatah which is the other major political group involved. They are roughly akin to political parties with a percentage of their membership (particularly Hamas) who are radical. There are extremists in the Israeli government too and they keep provoking the Palestinians even when it is clearly not a good idea. Neither side is listening to what the other cares about and neither has been willing to do what it will take to bring peace.
Israel never bombed their own citizens, you probably mean Hamas.
The people living in Gaza are not citizens of Israel? They are for all practical purposes since this is territory controlled by Israel. So in real terms how is this anything other than a civil war? Both sides are bombing each other and neither side is willing to be calm or rational. If you ever needed a better example of why I think organized religion is a terrible thing I certainly cannot find it.
Israeli citizens has all the rights that Americans have.
Tell that to the people living in Gaza. I'm sure they'll agree that their "rights" aren't being trampled on in any way and I'm sure they're fine with being kept in what amounts to a large prison camp with walls and guards.
Why the hell didn't they hire a competent CFO???
It's a good question and more common than you might think. Part of the problem is that bringing in competent outsiders can be uncomfortable for company founders. Gygax clearly had a problem with involving anyone who was not a wargamer but the people who are competent at finance don't overlap heavily with people who are gamers. Plus when things are going well it is easy to think that you can handle it. After all, it's gone well this far right?
One of the big challenges in growing a company is that the skill sets for founding a company and the skill sets for running it when it gets larger overlap far less than most people think. For every Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos there are thousands of people who simply cannot make the transition from small company founder to big company manager. The founders of Google were actually smart enough to bring in some outside management relatively early because they knew they didn't really have the skillset at the time to manage a company with a stratospheric growth rate. It would be like hiring a guy who has never managed a network larger than 10 computers to suddenly take charge of Amazon's data warehouses. The skills needed are just on a completely different level.
But if Gygax already controlled 51.1%, it doesn't matter how many shares they buy; unless Gygax sold some of his own, they should never have more than 48.9% and thus never have been in a position to oust him.
What you are overlooking is treasury stock and stock warrants. Treasury stock is stock owned by the company itself (often through buybacks) and most companies have some. I'm guessing the options held by the Blume family were in the form of warrants to buy treasury stock (or something very similar). A warrant is a form of an option. When a stock warrant is issued shares for that warrant are created but held by the company until the option is exercised. This means that the shares already existed and were owned by TSR but the Blumes had the right (but not the obligation ) to buy them at a fixed price. Warrants are dilutive so while Gygax held a majority of outstanding shares he did not own a majority of issued shares. Gygax's majority was contingent upon those share not getting exercised. When Gygax declined to buy the shares (he declined his first right of refusal) then they could be exercised and sold and at that point he was no longer a majority shareholder.
The Blume family also exercised options -- which means creating new shares at a price agreed previously.
Not necessarily. The options may have been in the form of warrants which allowed them to purchase existing treasury stock. When a warrant is issued new stock is issued at the same time.
Actually, that's a real problem for most of us.
Shouldn't be in general. When your children misbehave or under-perform in school do you have a problem disciplining them? You did set out expectations in advance right? If you didn't then shame on you. Same with going into business with family. Set out expectations right up front and then hold them to those expectations and communicate how they are doing in relation to those expectations. If you do that things usually work out ok.
A sociopath has no problem flipping the switch, to decide that they can ignore the family ties.
Very few people are sociopaths but also too few are good at keeping business and family separate. Business is completely unforgiving of family relationships. The mere fact that someone is family in no way enhances the profits of the company. You can solve a lot of problems by being very clear right up front about how the business relationship will work. This doesn't mean it will necessarily be all kittens and rainbows but if you have a contract up front and live up to that contract then things usually work out fine in the long run. Understand though that there is a non-trivial chance of some seriously ruffled feathers if a family member or friend is performing such that they have to be fired. They are unlikely to be happy about it. But they also usually will forgive if you are simply doing what you said would happen before they started.
You have to be very careful when hiring family. I'm married into a family where the family has had a successful business for three generations stretching over 100 years. It can work fine but it's hard and you have to be VERY clear about how it will work in advance. I haven't gotten involved with the business in part because I recognize the challenges of working closely with family.
Firing a relative or friend has repercussions outside of your business relationship.
Yes it does. Which is why you need to exercise caution when hiring relatives or friends. Just as important you need any appropriate contract outlining the terms of their employment. If things go south (as they sometimes do) then you follow the contract to the letter. I've been business partners with friends and family and we took the time to agree how things would work up front. Some of the businesses didn't work out but they were dissolved amicably because we were clear up front about how things would happen. I'm still on good terms with them because we were honest with each other regarding what we wanted out of the arrangement and how it would work if things went well and if they didn't.
Do you really think that a nasty money fight between friends and relatives with contractual obligations in a business would not affect the personal relationships between them?
Of course it would but you can head most of those issues off by being VERY clear up front about how things will work. Say what you are going to do and then do exactly what you said you would do. If the other party can't deal with that then things were probably doomed from the start. I once had someone I respect a lot give me some very good advice. He said "Never get into a business deal you wouldn't be willing do as a handshake agreement but also never do a business deal where the details aren't spelled out on paper either." If you don't trust someone, don't go into business with them. If you do trust someone, protect yourself from being wrong by proper use of contracts.
I'd love to have an 800+ mile range but no car I've ever owned has ever even teased that (best tank ever 436miles).
Doesn't really matter since you don't have an 800 mile bladder. Unless you plan on wearing diapers while you drive you're going to pull over sometime for, umm... well, you know... and may as well refuel while you do.
Wake me when it has a 500 mile range, can be fully charged in 5 minutes, and will last more than 5 years. Oh, and it has to work in a non-streamlined vehicle like a loaded F-150 pickup.
The only bit of that specification that would be difficult right now in pure electric form would be the 5 minute recharge unless we are talking about battery pack swaps. Nobody has done it yet but it's not actually impossible judging by the range achieved with the Tesla and some others.
Furthermore those specs could easily be done today albeit in hybrid form with better fuel economy, more torque/hp, equal refueling time and it certainly would last more than 5 years baring unexpected malfunction. Might not be cheaper but it is certainly technologically feasible. Honestly I think trucks should be diesel-electric hybrids like trains. Electric motors drive the wheels and get charged by a diesel engine.
If you can see it from public property and tell what it is, it's (effectively) in the public domain, isn't it?
Not necessarily. This isn't the United States. Different laws and customs applied differently. Your normal expectations regarding the law may not apply.
I'd say Google's doing them a favour. If any of their secret installations turn up on it, you know it's time to shut them down or move them.
Yeah... I'm sure that's exactly how they will see it too... [/sarcasm]
Why are they building giant amphibious cargo planes today? Who has that need?
Isn't that sort of a self answering question? Let's break it down. 3/4 of the earth's surface is water and there aren't nice paved roads everywhere there is a need for cargo. Ships are slow, planes are not. Planes that can land on water do not need a prepared runway as any sufficiently large, reasonably calm body of water will suffice if there isn't a traditional runway available. Planes that can land/takeoff from water can be refueled there too meaning they do not have to worry about ditching when over water except in rough weather.
So basically anyone who needs relatively fast long distance transport of cargo to a remote area where there is water but possibly not runways. Describes more than a few places on earth.
Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place?
Depends on the situation. Some people take them out of pure pleasure seeking. Others get addicted to chemicals like opiates as a result of circumstances well beyond their control like surgeries.
Furthermore just because someone made a bad decision doesn't mean we simply abandon them. Maybe you are the one person who has never made a bad choice in life but I doubt it. Sometimes people make bad choices and a civilized society tries to a reasonable degree to help them through it. We're going to pay for it one way or another anyway so why not do the humane thing and help those who are willing to be helped?
If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.
Think so? I can introduce you to some former surgery patients and war veterans among others who were introduced to opiates to control pain by their physicians for very real pain problems and as a result were unable to avoid addiction. I can point you to some suffering from PTSD (not their fault) who are trying to find some way to cope who sometimes turn to chemicals because they don't understand what has happened and it is the only relief they can find before they understand what has happened. Some addictions are not the solely the fault of the person taking the drugs.
It's easy and wrong to paint every drug addict with the same broad brush. Some, like the sort you are thinking of, are simply idiots seeking pleasure or escape. If you are snorting cocaine on your yacht for fun, yeah that's on you and if you die I'm not going to cry a river for you. Others are decent people trying to cope with a real problem not of their own making. You really think that a wounded veteran who gets unintentionally addicted to opiates while trying to control pain is solely responsible for his situation? If so you are a very cold hearted person.
Yes, it is, takes some fucking responsibility for your own actions.
That's delightfully naive of you. You think someone who is taking drugs to get high is somehow going to be interested in increasing their level of responsibility?
When there's money in it, people will cheat.
I have news for you. People cheat even when there isn't money in it. Money makes the problem worse but it isn't the root of the problem. Some people just want to win, no matter what. Money alone really isn't enough to explain the cheating in high level athletics. It's a factor but not as big as you might assume.
I've competed at the Division 1 college level of athletics for a top tier program in my sport of choice (not cycling). Nobody gets into sport at that level because of money though it might help keep them in it. People compete because they want to win. They want to be the best. That is most of what drives them. Money is just added incentive for those at the very top in select sports. You'll see people get popped for PEDs in sports where there is no money almost as often as in sports where there is money. Few people appreciate just how hard and how much work it is to compete at that level. There are very few people for whom money alone is sufficient motivation to compete at that level. You basically have to torture yourself for years on a daily basis and most people cannot do it.
Drugs can make a difference but only a few percent improvement at best. You could throw a whole pharmacy at me or 99.9999% of people on Earth and we still don't have the physiology to win the Tour de France. You have to be able to get near the top without drugs for the drugs to be able to push you to the top. I've competed and coached my sport for well over 30 years. There is close to no money in the sport but you'll see at least 1 or 2 athletes get popped for PEDs at world level competitions each year. I have good reason to believe most athletes in my sport are clean (PEDs provide a relatively modest performance benefit) but I'm quite certain a few aren't and like I said, money is not really a factor.
Ever since the Olympics went professional, it's been boring.
Maybe to you. Personally I disagree. I want to see the best of the best competing on the most level playing field we can devise. Whether they get paid for it or not is irrelevant to me.
I don't care. Sports is (are?) stupid.
Why? Because you don't play them? I'm sure whatever hobbies you prefer are clearly superior... [/sarcasm]
They are, by default, exclusionary.
Pretty much anyone can play sports so they are by definition not exclusionary. You might not be the best at a given sport but absent an insurmountable physical deficit there is nothing prohibiting your from participation. We even have special competitions like the Special Olympics for those who need a little extra help to participate.
Call me a jerk for not feeling sympathy for the rich, steroid ladened, kids whose parents gave them every advantage in the world suddenly feel disadvantaged.
Ok, you're a jerk. "Rich, steroid ladened kids whose parents give them every advantage"? Seriously? You sound like a pathetic bitter little person with an inferiority complex who needs to denigrate others to make yourself feel superior. Sports are nothing more than games. You don't have to like sports nor do you have to participate but it takes a real asshole to think that because others enjoy a game that those who participate are somehow bad people. The entire point of a game is to have people compete under the same rules as everyone else. Sometimes technology creates advantages that break the game balance and we have to consider whether or not to allow that technology. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Having that discussion does not make you one a jerk but people who criticize the need for the discussion (like you) are jerks.
A fool's drivel repeated often enough will some day end up in the lexicon, especially in the moden age of instant mass communications, but that does not make it correct.
If it is used often enough it DOES make it correct, particularly when it is used that way within a trade. That is how languages are formed in the real world. Not from ivory tower dictates of grammar nazis like yourself.
"Buss" is not a word
Except that it is. It means Kiss according to Webster. It is also a fairly common shortened spelling of a Busbar. Bus is a contraction of the latin word "omnibus", meaning "for all".
This holds true within the electrical trade, as many old-timers frequently write (not type!) "buss" -- I often see it on equipment labels, one-line drawings, etc.,
Then you have contradicted your own argument and it is de-facto correct if it is used that way commonly within the relevant trade.
Let's imagine Amazon runs a script and raises all their prices, every single one of them, by 1% Would anyone notice?
Short answer? Yes they would.
Long answer? 1% is not a trivial price increase when what you are selling is commodities at cutthroat retail prices. Walmart's entire profit margin is just a hair over 3% and nobody thinks they are a failure. Their cost advantage over competitors like Target is whisper thin. Less than 1%. If they raise prices by just 1% they would no longer be the cost leader anymore.
Is 1% even enough to justify looking elsewhere for a product?
On individual items? Mostly not. But over a large enough basket of items and customers? Absolutely yes. They would without question lose some amount of business.
In contrast, the skittish investors yesterday cost the company about $12B compared to the $126M business loss. The skittish investors who cause huge overnight drops like this create opportunities.
Skittish investors didn't cost the company a penny. You will not find the stock price in any profit or loss statement for the company. The day to day fluctuations of the stock market have only a very indirect effect on Amazon's finances. The main thing it matters for is if Amazon were to issue additional stock to the market in the future, they wouldn't raise as much money. It also has a mild effect on their cost of capital.
What this means is that skittish investors cost all Amazon investors $12B in value over a $126M loss for the current period. Probably a bit of an over reaction as you pointed out. The profit or loss here is frankly immaterial. What matters is what investors think of Amazon's prospects going forward. Personally I think Amazon is in a very strong position and they could be profitable tomorrow if they felt the need. I see it as a buying opportunity if anything.