Let's go one better. Take a community of LGBT folks and have them state that heterosexual sex, including simulated sex, is obscene. Then go after Hulu for hosting shows like Grey's Anatomy, Nip/Tuck, and so forth.
Not country, county, without the "r". Things aren't rebroadcast in different counties.
You don't even have to have different counties involved for alcohol laws to change, though. In Collin County, Texas, where I live, it's legal for package stores only to sell beer and wine in Plano; across the border in Richardson you can sell beer and wine in grocery stores. And liquor stores are legal in Richardson, too, as long as you're in the part that's in Dallas County, not Collin County, and technically only in the part of town that's called "Buckingham" (even though they get all of their services from Richardson they're legally a separate town). It's even more confusing in Dallas itself, where some parts of town are dry, others are moist, and others are completely dry. So good luck to any alcohol manufacturers or retailers trying to comply with all those laws if this ruling meant they couldn't advertise to people who can't buy their product in their location.
Can't believe I missed that one. Guess the Emerald Isle is officially off the list of potential countries to which to emigrate when/if the US goes bust.
With two circuit courts disagreeing over how to apply the law it's pretty safe to assume that SCOTUS will hear the case. At least, let's hope they do so there can be some clarity on the issue.
No, you missed the point. You seem to think that if a conman tricks you into giving him $100,000 by posing as a charity for Haiti that you gave that money voluntarily. That can't happen as, by definition, you cannot volunteer to be defrauded. Since every single one of your assertions is predicated on the notion that you can volunteer to be defrauded by taking part in some other activity, they are all bogus assertions.
I understand how options work. Note that I said "Once those options are exercised...." Nothing you said in your post contradicts my assertion that issuing more stock dilutes the capital structure of the corporation in question.
Then the other person mumbles something back at you in their language that neither you or the cell phone can make heads or tails out of. You can't "train" them so it will never work for that.
That's why it's important to combine this app with two others: a Taser app, and a donut-hole-dispensing app. Can't have training with punishment and reward!
Once those options are exercised they have the same exact effect on the overall equity and capital structure of the corporation as straight stock does. So there's not much point throwing them into the conversation, might as well leave it as just "equity".
The effect that preferred stock has on these ratios is worth discussing, of course, but I've never heard of rank-and-file employees getting preferred stock in lieu of cash. I can't imagine anyone being willing to pay someone other than a very-highly placed executive a perpetuity like that.
Paying cash to employees = assets are reduced. Liabilities are unaffected (we're leaving aside things like PTO and sick days, which accrue as liabilities for the employer.) But those assets will be replaced as new sales are made.
Paying stock to employees = owners' equity is diminished across the board, resulting in low P/E ratios, debt ratios, and pretty much anything else that depends on the number of shares outstanding to figure out the health of a corporation. Which drives down the value of the existing stock, meaning you have to issue that much more stock to employees when you pay them just to make up the difference. Which of course they'll sell immediately, rather than being stuck with something that's approaching no value.
So in short, paying employees just with stock is a horrible idea.
If you're already in a relationship, nice chocolate, flowers, and dinner (or any subset of the above) is plenty celebration.
Some people need more romance than just that. If that minimal level of effort works for you in your relationship, more power to you. But for the rest of us, Valentine's Day is another set day on which to pull out all the stops and make the person we're with feel more special than on other days.
1) Online gambling is no more difficult to regulate than brick-and-mortar casinos. If it were, you wouldn't have sports books and race tracks across the country taking wagers from people who are not onsite. Allowing the same thing to happen from someone's home is just a difference of degree, not of kind.
2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors. Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes). That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help. (Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.)
3) There is no third point.
4) I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas. I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker rooms, when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims (if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).
Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers
But President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that political influence from foreign corporations was a bad thing. And yet his own administration is open to their influence, after all? Was he just lying in his speech? 'Cause I would be shocked, shocked!, to find out that was the case.
For someone who uses Sun Tzu's name in his handle, you have an awfully weak grasp of the concept of "do not fight a battle you do not have to win". If the bullies aren't picking on you, that's a victory; it's not your responsibility to make sure they don't pick on anyone else.
Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, this isn't "blaming the victim". This is giving victims something that can do in their own lives to end or mitigate bullying. That isn't blame, that's empowerment.
So really the problem comes down to one of teacher competence. The reason we keep hiring incompetent teachers to start with is: we can't get anyone else to apply. The solution to that is to both raise the standards (not necessarily requiring all teachers to have Masters, but make the tests for each subject harder), and to pay them more (to attract competence). Merit increases would also go a long ways to this (truly good employees want to be rewarded for their work and not just move up the ladder with small raises each year).
But we also need to make it much, much easier to fire the incompetent ones. All of these things mean getting rid of the teachers' unions, like I talked about in my original post.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's go one better. Take a community of LGBT folks and have them state that heterosexual sex, including simulated sex, is obscene. Then go after Hulu for hosting shows like Grey's Anatomy, Nip/Tuck, and so forth.
Not country, county, without the "r". Things aren't rebroadcast in different counties.
You don't even have to have different counties involved for alcohol laws to change, though. In Collin County, Texas, where I live, it's legal for package stores only to sell beer and wine in Plano; across the border in Richardson you can sell beer and wine in grocery stores. And liquor stores are legal in Richardson, too, as long as you're in the part that's in Dallas County, not Collin County, and technically only in the part of town that's called "Buckingham" (even though they get all of their services from Richardson they're legally a separate town). It's even more confusing in Dallas itself, where some parts of town are dry, others are moist, and others are completely dry. So good luck to any alcohol manufacturers or retailers trying to comply with all those laws if this ruling meant they couldn't advertise to people who can't buy their product in their location.
Can't believe I missed that one. Guess the Emerald Isle is officially off the list of potential countries to which to emigrate when/if the US goes bust.
With two circuit courts disagreeing over how to apply the law it's pretty safe to assume that SCOTUS will hear the case. At least, let's hope they do so there can be some clarity on the issue.
No, you missed the point. You seem to think that if a conman tricks you into giving him $100,000 by posing as a charity for Haiti that you gave that money voluntarily. That can't happen as, by definition, you cannot volunteer to be defrauded. Since every single one of your assertions is predicated on the notion that you can volunteer to be defrauded by taking part in some other activity, they are all bogus assertions.
I understand how options work. Note that I said "Once those options are exercised...." Nothing you said in your post contradicts my assertion that issuing more stock dilutes the capital structure of the corporation in question.
Then the other person mumbles something back at you in their language that neither you or the cell phone can make heads or tails out of. You can't "train" them so it will never work for that.
That's why it's important to combine this app with two others: a Taser app, and a donut-hole-dispensing app. Can't have training with punishment and reward!
Once those options are exercised they have the same exact effect on the overall equity and capital structure of the corporation as straight stock does. So there's not much point throwing them into the conversation, might as well leave it as just "equity".
The effect that preferred stock has on these ratios is worth discussing, of course, but I've never heard of rank-and-file employees getting preferred stock in lieu of cash. I can't imagine anyone being willing to pay someone other than a very-highly placed executive a perpetuity like that.
Paying cash to employees = assets are reduced. Liabilities are unaffected (we're leaving aside things like PTO and sick days, which accrue as liabilities for the employer.) But those assets will be replaced as new sales are made.
Paying stock to employees = owners' equity is diminished across the board, resulting in low P/E ratios, debt ratios, and pretty much anything else that depends on the number of shares outstanding to figure out the health of a corporation. Which drives down the value of the existing stock, meaning you have to issue that much more stock to employees when you pay them just to make up the difference. Which of course they'll sell immediately, rather than being stuck with something that's approaching no value.
So in short, paying employees just with stock is a horrible idea.
correlation is not causation
Yeah, but sometimes it is. What do you think of that, smart guy?
Please let the executor of your estate let me know when you die; your paintings might be worth something then.
If you're already in a relationship, nice chocolate, flowers, and dinner (or any subset of the above) is plenty celebration.
Some people need more romance than just that. If that minimal level of effort works for you in your relationship, more power to you. But for the rest of us, Valentine's Day is another set day on which to pull out all the stops and make the person we're with feel more special than on other days.
Did you volunteer for your doctor to cut off the wrong leg? No.
Did you voluntarily eat contaminated food (hint: you can't volunteer for something you didn't know existed)? No.
Did you ask that drunk driver to smash into your car at 80 mph? Of course not.
You really need to think about what the word "volunteer" means before trying to say I'm using it incorrectly.
You can't voluntarily take part in fraud. Which renders all of your examples moot.
1) Online gambling is no more difficult to regulate than brick-and-mortar casinos. If it were, you wouldn't have sports books and race tracks across the country taking wagers from people who are not onsite. Allowing the same thing to happen from someone's home is just a difference of degree, not of kind.
2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors. Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes). That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help. (Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.)
3) There is no third point.
4) I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas. I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker rooms, when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims (if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).
Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers
But President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that political influence from foreign corporations was a bad thing. And yet his own administration is open to their influence, after all? Was he just lying in his speech? 'Cause I would be shocked, shocked!, to find out that was the case.
Will it come with Jolene Blalock as an option?
For someone who uses Sun Tzu's name in his handle, you have an awfully weak grasp of the concept of "do not fight a battle you do not have to win". If the bullies aren't picking on you, that's a victory; it's not your responsibility to make sure they don't pick on anyone else.
So hanging out on Slashdot, Fark, or Facebook is one step below suicide? Yeah, that sounds about right.
*whoosh*
Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, this isn't "blaming the victim". This is giving victims something that can do in their own lives to end or mitigate bullying. That isn't blame, that's empowerment.
Wow, you hit every point on that one. Well done.
So really the problem comes down to one of teacher competence. The reason we keep hiring incompetent teachers to start with is: we can't get anyone else to apply. The solution to that is to both raise the standards (not necessarily requiring all teachers to have Masters, but make the tests for each subject harder), and to pay them more (to attract competence). Merit increases would also go a long ways to this (truly good employees want to be rewarded for their work and not just move up the ladder with small raises each year).
But we also need to make it much, much easier to fire the incompetent ones. All of these things mean getting rid of the teachers' unions, like I talked about in my original post.
In other words, it's too hard to fix so let's not try?
And what would you place as the cause for our failing education system?