You're right, bonds are sold to finance road construction. Care to guess where the money for the interest and principle on those bonds comes from? Hint: it rhymes with "ass tacks".
I believe that the municipalities should invest all of the capital in the costliest part of rolling out broadband, then lease that to politically connected telcos and ISPs at costs so low the bonds used to build the network in the first place will never be repaid, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill
An intelligent accountant understands that IT processes can reduce the costs of doing business. Reducing those costs has a direct effect on the balance sheet and increases the equity of the owners (since liabilities go down but assets remain static, equity must increase to balance the accounting equation). So now IT is not a cost center, it's a return on investment to the owners. Much like the accountants themselves.
Contracts, unless they're written to specifically allow for it, end at death. So this doesn't really address the question.
Not to mention, your estate is still "yours" when you die: the executor is there to make sure your wishes are honored. So technically this wouldn't be a transfer to someone else, it would just be someone else posting on your behalf.
This sounds like a nice idea, but I have to wonder about the estate and inheritance laws issues around this. Any lawyers out there care to speculate on whether you can leave your FB (or other site) account to someone in your will? Should the executor of your estate be granted access to the page to leave updates?
Interesting idea. Something like that would best be managed by a kernel module, to allow for modifying it while the system is running via rmmod and insmod. Obviously, it would be safer to make it a statically compiled list inside the kernel itself, but I'm wary of recompiling kernels and forcing reboots just to install software. Linux uptimes would start to look a lot like Windows uptimes in that scenario.
My wife works in pharmaceutical research. She's my source of information on how many drug trials are performed in the US versus other countries.
It doesn't matter where the companies are headquartered, it matters where they do their research and manufacturing. And the lion's share of that is done in the US.
They already do that. The patent fees on new drugs are pretty high, especially if you count the years of research the FDA requires before allowing a new drug to be sold. It goes into the billions even for the simplest drug.
Without the FDA, the research time on these drugs would be cut from 22 years to less than one. Of course, then you'd have every charlatan out there peddling his snake oil as the latest and greatest cancer cure. And without any research to back up their claims, no one would be able to judge whether or not those claims were true until after trying the drug. And if you're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work, then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.
There's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US: we don't force drug companies to give away their products for free. Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers. Too bad Congress doesn't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs, we'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.
I work for AT&T and this is the first I've heard of this letter. And I'm one of those geeks that actually hangs out on the company's HR intranet site a few times a week. No one I work with has heard of this thing, and none of us really care about net neutrality in general. Personally, I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides of the divide and don't really have an opinion on the matter strong enough to share. But to state that my employer is "urging" me and all of my coworkers to vote a certain way is preposterous.
That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process.
They're both communications with a rule-making body of the government. I fail to see any difference between them.
Maybe they're not ashamed of their signature, but instead are worried they may suffer consequences in their personal and/or professional lives from signing? They believe they were right to "stand up to the gays", but think that the "gay lobby" has a lock on all the good jobs and restaurant reservations or something.
Actually, now that I think about it, that kind of paranoia shouldn't be coddled. Publish away!
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, bonds are sold to finance road construction. Care to guess where the money for the interest and principle on those bonds comes from? Hint: it rhymes with "ass tacks".
I believe that the municipalities should invest all of the capital in the costliest part of rolling out broadband, then lease that to politically connected telcos and ISPs at costs so low the bonds used to build the network in the first place will never be repaid, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill
FTFY.
An intelligent accountant understands that IT processes can reduce the costs of doing business. Reducing those costs has a direct effect on the balance sheet and increases the equity of the owners (since liabilities go down but assets remain static, equity must increase to balance the accounting equation). So now IT is not a cost center, it's a return on investment to the owners. Much like the accountants themselves.
That's funny, in my experience "no" means "your credit card was declined".
If you haven't yet, you should read Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton. Imagine the Beowulf epic, but Grendel is a Neanderthal.
Yeah, and they'd either end up as lawyers or insurance salesmen.
Contracts, unless they're written to specifically allow for it, end at death. So this doesn't really address the question.
Not to mention, your estate is still "yours" when you die: the executor is there to make sure your wishes are honored. So technically this wouldn't be a transfer to someone else, it would just be someone else posting on your behalf.
This sounds like a nice idea, but I have to wonder about the estate and inheritance laws issues around this. Any lawyers out there care to speculate on whether you can leave your FB (or other site) account to someone in your will? Should the executor of your estate be granted access to the page to leave updates?
And Netcraft confirmed it.
Werewolves aren't undead. I'd replace them in your list with "middle management".
Frankly, I find that impossible to believe. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Interesting idea. Something like that would best be managed by a kernel module, to allow for modifying it while the system is running via rmmod and insmod. Obviously, it would be safer to make it a statically compiled list inside the kernel itself, but I'm wary of recompiling kernels and forcing reboots just to install software. Linux uptimes would start to look a lot like Windows uptimes in that scenario.
I'll ask my wife next time we talk. I'm sure she has industry stats, and links to them, regarding those numbers.
My wife works in pharmaceutical research. She's my source of information on how many drug trials are performed in the US versus other countries.
It doesn't matter where the companies are headquartered, it matters where they do their research and manufacturing. And the lion's share of that is done in the US.
They already do that. The patent fees on new drugs are pretty high, especially if you count the years of research the FDA requires before allowing a new drug to be sold. It goes into the billions even for the simplest drug.
Without the FDA, the research time on these drugs would be cut from 22 years to less than one. Of course, then you'd have every charlatan out there peddling his snake oil as the latest and greatest cancer cure. And without any research to back up their claims, no one would be able to judge whether or not those claims were true until after trying the drug. And if you're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work, then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.
There's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US: we don't force drug companies to give away their products for free. Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers. Too bad Congress doesn't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs, we'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.
All right Father, think it's time for you to leave the alter boys alone.
If I understand libertarianism
Don't worry, you don't.
This sig is worded exactly as intended. Any lame "Fixed that for you" jokes will be modded into oblivion.
FTFY.
What is he doing trying to practice law?
Don't be surprised to see Dart for Congress bumper stickers in the future.
For not announcing the dances ahead of time so more engineers could plan on attending. Duh.
That's because the Higgs Boson traveled back through time to obfuscate the summary so that no one would understand it.
I work for AT&T and this is the first I've heard of this letter. And I'm one of those geeks that actually hangs out on the company's HR intranet site a few times a week. No one I work with has heard of this thing, and none of us really care about net neutrality in general. Personally, I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides of the divide and don't really have an opinion on the matter strong enough to share. But to state that my employer is "urging" me and all of my coworkers to vote a certain way is preposterous.
That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process.
They're both communications with a rule-making body of the government. I fail to see any difference between them.
Maybe they're not ashamed of their signature, but instead are worried they may suffer consequences in their personal and/or professional lives from signing? They believe they were right to "stand up to the gays", but think that the "gay lobby" has a lock on all the good jobs and restaurant reservations or something.
Actually, now that I think about it, that kind of paranoia shouldn't be coddled. Publish away!