Well the owners could have sold some of their shares on the stock market, then put that money into the company. I'm guessing the shares are still worth something, even if the company is near bankruptcy - they would be giving up some of what they have in exchange for a chance that the company will survive.
As for the deal the workers were offered, what made it different from the one they had before (the one that set their old salaries)? If the management kept up like in the past, the company could soon face the same situation again - and any deals would be null and void 'for the good of the company'.
Why weren't the workers offered a share of the company instead - work for less, but you get these shares.
But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%. Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?
But its so much more efficient to give that money to stockholders, then shut down or bankrupt the company when it's time to start paying. So that's what happens.
When things go ok the customer pays a small fee to Paypal and both are content. When things go wrong, Paypal usually takes all of the customer's money. But there is never an opposite case case of Paypal giving money to the customer, so you never hear about them.
And how is that different from existing laws for a man? (except the rape one perhaps). A man can already be 'forced' to become a parent in any one of those situations.
What landmines? It will be the same as it is now, except that the woman have to give the father a chance to keep the aborted fetus alive. Any further custody disputes will be the same as they are now.
Is probation unconstitutional as well then? With three strikes, every crimes carries a 50% eternal probation - if you commit 2 more crimes you're screwed.
From what I understand the problem was that they didn't update their information once the original website stopped linking the picture with the plaintiffs name.
Well Apple is trying it's best to keep Samsung from competing against them in the mobile market. So why shouldn't Samsung try the same thing? If no more iPhones are sold, then more of the other kinds of phones likely will. At the same time this might scare Apple into negotiating instead of suing over rectangular devices in the future.
Require the patent holder to swear an oath that there is no prior art and that the patent is valid when registering the patent. Then if it is invalidated, imprison him. That should cut down on the number of applications.
Just remember not to base your decision on just what their hobby is. What if politician B's hobby consisted of building ever better computer controlled electric chairs for his pets?
I'm not quite sure why you bring up financial transactions in this context. There are records (often even paper ones) of every transaction, and there are rarely reports of transactions that were supposed to happen but didn't.
But in the financial system you can always verify the results. If you deposit X, you can then check your balance and if it isn't oldBalance+X, you can go complain/sue the bank. With elections all you can do is hope that your vote was recorded correctly.
The issue with recounts is that there can BE a recount. Electronic voting will (hopefully at least) return the exact same result every time. And since there is no way to verify the votes other then what that system tells you, whoever sets the first result decides the election.
Well the problem is that corporations can just create sub-corporations for every country. So Apple would not have a physical presence anywhere. Apple-US, for example, would handle all the sale in the US, then 'pay' Apple 110%. So Apple-US would be operating at a loss, having to pay 0 taxes.
The problem with corporations is that respecting the spirit of the law goes against the corporations main purpose - making as much money as possible. And they don't have a conscience.
You could display all of the candidate names on the screen, then have up/down buttons to choose one and a 'vote' button. You don't need a special button for every selection.
So a law can't say that a person has to pay x% of their income if they break a certain law? If that kind of a law is wrong, then what about taxes? Should people all be required to pay X per year, without any regard of what they earned?
Slashdot Mirror
Well the owners could have sold some of their shares on the stock market, then put that money into the company. I'm guessing the shares are still worth something, even if the company is near bankruptcy - they would be giving up some of what they have in exchange for a chance that the company will survive.
As for the deal the workers were offered, what made it different from the one they had before (the one that set their old salaries)? If the management kept up like in the past, the company could soon face the same situation again - and any deals would be null and void 'for the good of the company'.
Why weren't the workers offered a share of the company instead - work for less, but you get these shares.
But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%.
Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?
But its so much more efficient to give that money to stockholders, then shut down or bankrupt the company when it's time to start paying. So that's what happens.
When things go ok the customer pays a small fee to Paypal and both are content. When things go wrong, Paypal usually takes all of the customer's money. But there is never an opposite case case of Paypal giving money to the customer, so you never hear about them.
And how is that different from existing laws for a man? (except the rape one perhaps). A man can already be 'forced' to become a parent in any one of those situations.
Yes, and what's wrong with that? A father has to contribute in cases where the mother decides to have the child, why not have it work both ways?
What landmines? It will be the same as it is now, except that the woman have to give the father a chance to keep the aborted fetus alive. Any further custody disputes will be the same as they are now.
Yeah, he must be a serial killer or something.
Except that the people DID buy it. So they were obviously willing to give money for the product.
Is probation unconstitutional as well then? With three strikes, every crimes carries a 50% eternal probation - if you commit 2 more crimes you're screwed.
From what I understand the problem was that they didn't update their information once the original website stopped linking the picture with the plaintiffs name.
Well Apple is trying it's best to keep Samsung from competing against them in the mobile market. So why shouldn't Samsung try the same thing? If no more iPhones are sold, then more of the other kinds of phones likely will.
At the same time this might scare Apple into negotiating instead of suing over rectangular devices in the future.
And she would have worn the sign under a sweater.
Require the patent holder to swear an oath that there is no prior art and that the patent is valid when registering the patent. Then if it is invalidated, imprison him.
That should cut down on the number of applications.
Just remember not to base your decision on just what their hobby is. What if politician B's hobby consisted of building ever better computer controlled electric chairs for his pets?
Damn casuals.
I'm not quite sure why you bring up financial transactions in this context. There are records (often even paper ones) of every transaction, and there are rarely reports of transactions that were supposed to happen but didn't.
But in the financial system you can always verify the results. If you deposit X, you can then check your balance and if it isn't oldBalance+X, you can go complain/sue the bank. With elections all you can do is hope that your vote was recorded correctly.
The issue with recounts is that there can BE a recount. Electronic voting will (hopefully at least) return the exact same result every time. And since there is no way to verify the votes other then what that system tells you, whoever sets the first result decides the election.
At least with paper ballots someone has to commit a crime to tamper with them. It can't be just an 'undocumented feature' of the voting machine.
Well the problem is that corporations can just create sub-corporations for every country. So Apple would not have a physical presence anywhere. Apple-US, for example, would handle all the sale in the US, then 'pay' Apple 110%. So Apple-US would be operating at a loss, having to pay 0 taxes.
The problem with corporations is that respecting the spirit of the law goes against the corporations main purpose - making as much money as possible. And they don't have a conscience.
You could display all of the candidate names on the screen, then have up/down buttons to choose one and a 'vote' button. You don't need a special button for every selection.
What if he sold his copy to someone?
So a law can't say that a person has to pay x% of their income if they break a certain law? If that kind of a law is wrong, then what about taxes? Should people all be required to pay X per year, without any regard of what they earned?