Another good thing would be if the SEC actually punished the guys who break the rules, instead of mostly just making them give back some of the money they made.
Why would you need to double everyone's pay? Why not, for example increase the assistant manager's pay to $25 and the general manager's to 40$. They still make quite a bit more then the burger flipper while any increases in the cost of living would be covered by their raise. They are not going to starve if they no longer make X times the amount their lowest paid employees make.
Weren't there some big non-hidden power cables running in to keep the 'reactor' functioning? And the measurements of the power going in were controlled by the 'inventor'.
I don't understand why expropriation requires more killing then the status quo. Just pass a law to do it and suddenly every bank account and share belongs to the government. That's 99% of the work done already.
I wonder if some corporation could sue the NSA for failing to protect their data, if it turns out that the the data was used to harm the corporation in some way. After all, Snowden worked for the NSA, so it was their responsibility to keep him in line.
Remember that that's 11.1% of their PROFIT. So the computer programmer, who probably spent quite a bit of that 50K on 'costs of operation', like food and shelter, would only be paying 11.1% of what he managed to save, and even that only IF he was caught selling financial system back-doors or whatever his crime was. And who knows how many years he'd been doing it before he was caught.
You pass a law saying that all property now belongs to the state. If they resist the law violently then killing them isn't murder. And if they don't resist then there is no need to kill them.
Communism can be imposed without force, as long as the (currently) rich are as law abiding as they want the poor to be.
That could work as long as there was enough space for all students to go to the best school(s). Unfortunately what would likely happen is that the schools with wealthier students would try paying their teachers more(and so being able to get the best ones), while the schools that had poorer students would try increasing their class sizes to 100 to see if in increased competition would improve grades. Any any parents trying to move their kids to the 'better' schools would be told that there is just no space available.
Exactly - giving him stock is about the same as giving him cash. The only difference is that it that it looks better on the balance sheet.
As for the second part of your response, why is this view only taken when it comes to management? Nearly every worker will bring in more then they are being paid (if they don't you fire them anyway). So why does the management get such ridiculously inflated bonuses? And don't say it's because of all the responsibility they have - I've yet to hear of a manager paying the company when they do a poor job.
Plea bargaining could be a good thing - as long as only thing the prosecution is allowed to offer is a recommendation for a reduced sentence, not a reduced charge. Admitting something doesn't change what you did, so why should it reduce the charges you're facing?
Many of our problems also come from the old generation KNOWING they are going to fade away. Why bother planing for the future, if they aren't going to be there to see it. Why bother learning new things when you'll be dead before you have a real chance to use them. Why be nice to people, when you'll be long dead before they're in a position to fight back. If people were 'immortal', then they'd behave quite a bit differently.
So let's say the creepy guy has a gun. He pulls it out and threatens you with it. You try to grab it and a struggle ensues, in which you hit him in the head a few times. The guy tries to get away from you, screams for help but is still holding the gun. Do you have a right to keep trying to get it away from him (violently), or do you have to let him go?
Slashdot Mirror
But that could make the train derail and kill all 6.
And isn't that how it works now?
Don't you have to transfer your coins to coinbase first? So that transaction prevents you from paying them to anyone else.
Another good thing would be if the SEC actually punished the guys who break the rules, instead of mostly just making them give back some of the money they made.
The manager would still be making way more then everyone else. And if he was working more hours, he'd be making even more - the pay is per hour.
Why would you need to double everyone's pay? Why not, for example increase the assistant manager's pay to $25 and the general manager's to 40$. They still make quite a bit more then the burger flipper while any increases in the cost of living would be covered by their raise. They are not going to starve if they no longer make X times the amount their lowest paid employees make.
And there were plenty of copies floating around with that protection removed.
Yes, if only there were people working on removing DRM from games, sometimes before they were even officially released. But that would never happen.
Weren't there some big non-hidden power cables running in to keep the 'reactor' functioning? And the measurements of the power going in were controlled by the 'inventor'.
I don't understand why expropriation requires more killing then the status quo. Just pass a law to do it and suddenly every bank account and share belongs to the government. That's 99% of the work done already.
I wonder if some corporation could sue the NSA for failing to protect their data, if it turns out that the the data was used to harm the corporation in some way. After all, Snowden worked for the NSA, so it was their responsibility to keep him in line.
Remember that that's 11.1% of their PROFIT. So the computer programmer, who probably spent quite a bit of that 50K on 'costs of operation', like food and shelter, would only be paying 11.1% of what he managed to save, and even that only IF he was caught selling financial system back-doors or whatever his crime was. And who knows how many years he'd been doing it before he was caught.
You pass a law saying that all property now belongs to the state. If they resist the law violently then killing them isn't murder. And if they don't resist then there is no need to kill them.
Communism can be imposed without force, as long as the (currently) rich are as law abiding as they want the poor to be.
That could work as long as there was enough space for all students to go to the best school(s). Unfortunately what would likely happen is that the schools with wealthier students would try paying their teachers more(and so being able to get the best ones), while the schools that had poorer students would try increasing their class sizes to 100 to see if in increased competition would improve grades. Any any parents trying to move their kids to the 'better' schools would be told that there is just no space available.
Exactly - giving him stock is about the same as giving him cash. The only difference is that it that it looks better on the balance sheet.
As for the second part of your response, why is this view only taken when it comes to management? Nearly every worker will bring in more then they are being paid (if they don't you fire them anyway). So why does the management get such ridiculously inflated bonuses? And don't say it's because of all the responsibility they have - I've yet to hear of a manager paying the company when they do a poor job.
But won't the value of the company drop as a result? Since it no longer owns those shares?
For every stock that he gets, the value of stockholder stocks is diluted - they own a lesser % of the company. Why shouldn't they complain about that?
If stock options were 'free' for the stockholders, then why doesn't every worker get a few million dollar's worth of them?
He should profit from the increase in the value of any shares he owns. Otherwise running the company well is his JOB.
And the jury will have no choice but to send you to jail.
Plea bargaining could be a good thing - as long as only thing the prosecution is allowed to offer is a recommendation for a reduced sentence, not a reduced charge. Admitting something doesn't change what you did, so why should it reduce the charges you're facing?
Why not yell at the parents for letting their kid ingest random fluids in the street?
Having elections doesn't mean much when much of your population is not eligible to vote due to being enslaved and/or female.
Many of our problems also come from the old generation KNOWING they are going to fade away. Why bother planing for the future, if they aren't going to be there to see it. Why bother learning new things when you'll be dead before you have a real chance to use them. Why be nice to people, when you'll be long dead before they're in a position to fight back.
If people were 'immortal', then they'd behave quite a bit differently.
And how close did either of those come to reaching orbit?
So let's say the creepy guy has a gun. He pulls it out and threatens you with it. You try to grab it and a struggle ensues, in which you hit him in the head a few times. The guy tries to get away from you, screams for help but is still holding the gun. Do you have a right to keep trying to get it away from him (violently), or do you have to let him go?