They did NOT say that the goal was to realize a loss, just that profit was not the reason for the acquisition.
It should be noted that the loss realized is probably less than the gross federal revenue of the direct GM employees and supply contractors (parts and services) during that time, not including second tier effects like money spent by the employees or default losses on mortgages owned by fannie/freddy. (figure 200,000 direct and 200,000 immediate contract workers, $60k avg at 10% effective gross tax rate over 5 years = $12B)
Replace Amazon with Modern, and you'll cover more ground while being just as accurate. Actually, on reflection, there's no need to modify the subject - Workers... is historically accurate for most of organized human civilization.
See, if they spy on Americans, they could get in trouble. See, as an intelligence agency, there are limits on what they can do wrt Americans, and if you ahve an American server and an American person of interest, then you have to do a bunch of paper work and go to a secret court and it's just a big pain in the ass.
BUT if you ship everything overseas, then it's fully within plausible deniability in harvesting all of the information from a source controlled by a foreign national. Once it goes off shore, the drag net gets to sift through everything. The NSA's mission is to sift through every scrap of data they can get ahold of. The only people who would want non-American servers are non-Americans, because they have no protections whatsoever. Americans *should* want American servers as there's a whole judicial process involved once everything is under US jurisdiction. That won't stop the NSA from "accidentally" combing though your stuff, but if they screw up even a little bit then a good lawyer can have it all thrown out.
Ethical doctors treat the wounded on both sides. Can most (military) weapon designers make the same claim?
I promise you that corporations sell military technology to every nation which wishes to defend itself (and is not in direct conflict with the defense limitations of their own/home nation).
All weapons of war are built for defensive purposes, even if it looks to the outside as if they are being used offensively. Sometimes, in war, offence is necessary to protect and secure your homeland.
That depends on your viewpoint. If you make weapons which assure the destruction of the other party, you may be preventing a war from being started. Your weapons may be used offensively, but the intent is to protect (if you're an American) 300 million US citizens from attack by outside agents.
In fact, it could be argued that if you DON'T do your job and produce weapons, you make your country (any country) a sitting duck for a takeover by an "evil" country who does produce weapons.
Just checking - the carriers are all tracking our movements as well, and using the data for profit.
I understand the outrage over the NSA doing it, I'm just checking to see if we're all fine with the corporations doing the same thing for profit as part of our wonder free-market society.
So you spoof the GPS to be within the dead reckoning band of the IMU and wind allowances (which can't easily be accounted for). It takes longer to hijack and transfer to a safe spot for collection, but not out of the bounds of possibility.
And they would have gotten out alive, or at least not burned to a crisp. Tesla's don't burn their occupants in a massive fireball when they hit a street sign (and a tree, and a light pole).
And 600HP is nothing. I've got a good friend from college who gets almost 1200HP in his GTR (1192 WHP / 1402 crank, actually). I don't see him wrapping it around vertical objects.
It depends on where you are. Some states tax property, some sales, some income, some intangibles (stocks/bonds). Each state has a mix it feels is the fairest and/or most effective for them.
This is a case of interstate commerce. And for 100 years the standard has been no tax is collected by the retailer unless they have a nexus in the state. The purpose for the nexus rule is that if you are actively serving customers intrastate, you have to obey the laws of the state. The implication is that if you have enough people here to have a store, you have enough to figure out local sales tax.
This is EXACTLY the kind of issue the Feds should be deciding, as the states all have different regulations regarding it. Of all the things that matter in interstate commerce, this is one of the truly important ones where the representatives of the collection of states should agree on a standard.
Keynesian is an epithet nowadays? Only if you're in the Tea Party movement. This would be the second time it has "worked", with actual unemployment and general market outlook increasing as a result of federal stimulus (aka wonton spending). It actually has sent money to infrastructure. Given that the collapse eliminated trillions upon trillions of dollars of "equity," and was the biggest collapse since 1929 (which took close to 15 years of stimulus to dig out of).
People forget that the unemployment rate today is the same as it was in 1993 and lower than it was through most of the 80s, even though we peaked (in 2009) at the second highest unemployment rate since 1948. 4 years of Keynesian economics and we're back to normal - not awesome, but normal. And before you break out the "people who gave up searching" line, people give up in every economy. There are people who just don't fit the current market needs, or get frustrated and don't get hired. It happens in a red-hot economy with 4% unemployment just like it does with 8-10%.
The market is, to some extent, a false indicator of the health of the economy. Nonetheless,your working man recovery requires that companies need the working pan to produce. We've learned that we don't need a chunk of our current workforce to meet demand - they were just unnecessary overhead during the boom years. Now that we've learned to be a little less fat, corporately speaking, we can do well without as many employees. It's gonna be a rough ride...
1st) Carrying literature which is contrary to the government is still free speech, and could be transported out of harms way 2nd If there's a specific exception for compartments for carrying firearms, he merely needs to mention his desire to get one 4th) Possibly relevant, but that will depend on the specific facts at trial. Indeed. 9th) Got me, too.
I would expect the 5th to show up, though. He is under no requirement that he even say what it was to be used for. The prosecution will have to show that he intended to carry illegal drugs in the compartment. That's hard to do if there is an absence of drug traffiking in his life.
One dollar => one ad / one show / one network => one vote.
Ads, and television in general, do not need to be truthful, just entertaining. If you've seen most of the voters out there you would know how easily swayed they are by what the see on television and what they hear on the radio. I would wager that if you took the Ds and Rs off the ballots, you'd find that the first person listed would win nearly every single election. People just do do any research. Never have, never will. It's one of the primarily reasons the electoral college is used - the founders simply didn't trust the people to make the most basic of informed decisions.
Patents already cover most implementations of GPUs within CPUs. But the field is wide open if you start embedding CPUs in GPUs. It's like "on the internet," but with uprocessors.
And, let's face it: you can argue that the cause is somewhat irrelevant. What is hard to argue with is that a change in the environment will destabilize the existing geopolitical conditions, which are relatively constrained at the moment. If you believe in the free market and capitalism, you know that change in market conditions is mostly bad for the vast majority of people. If we identify those things which will minimize the change, that will maximize overall stability as well as returns.
Unless, of course, you believe - like much of the human population - that you are part of some chosen, elite subset (or will be very, very soon). In which case you don't understand statistics, and hence can't even comprehend why everything I've said above should apply to you. And you never will.
A Russian roulette duel? You both have one bullet and fire at the same time? While driving towards one another? Do you shoot at each other, or in the traditional fashion (at yourself)?
"... to find out that their users still want to be able to sell used games..."
Shhhh - don't tell anyone, but they knew that all along. If they thought their users wouldn't want to there would be no need to cut off that non-residual revenue source, would there?
Or 1/6 the cost of the software the runs the entire medicare/medicaid/ACA system which manages 1000X the entire development cost ($600B+) of all the software every.single.year.
I wonder, does the XBOX eco system generate $100 Billion a year? If not, maybe MS should farm out their work to gov't contractors. It's not like MS won't fuck it up anyway - might as well get it cheaper.
It's part of their training. In fact, it's part of basic psychology. To control a situation, you have to be ready at any moment to command, and working from a position of strength is far more useful than working from a position of deliberation when you're talking about even a relatively peaceful crowd. That's not to say you didn't happen to ask an asshole where the train station was. However; if he was in the process of tracking anything out of the ordinary, your request falls just below "I don't care" on his list of priorities.
On the contrary, I was recently pulled over (for speeding*, it was my once-a-decade slip) in the middle of Virginia, pretty far out in the sticks. Once I'd spent 30 seconds creating a rapport with him, he was cheerful and helped me find the exit I need to get to my event - and even suggested a route that would avoid both construction and a local speed trap area. There ARE bad cops, but most of them just play Bad Cop as part of an ongoing proactive/defensive strategy they learn in the academy.
*I actually passed the undercover cruiser and didn't realize it until it was too late...because I was distracted and messing with my in-dash GPS which was giving me weird directions. I decided that "sorry, I didn't realize I was speeding because I wasn't paying any attention to the road" was a poor defense, and simply said I'd taken the truck off cruise control because I thought I'd missed my exit - resulting in me not paying attention to my speed as I was trying to read the road signs up ahead.
You sell when either (a) you feel the price is indicative of the value or (b) you have enough to retire and spend your days working (or not working) on whatever the fuck you feel like. And, for the record, it's the lower of those two values you should accept. That's where the snapchat folks failed.
If you really feel that it's only worth 100k, sign the contract. If it's "worth" $100k, then going from 100k-$1M-$10M takes resources - probably resources you don't have. OTOH, if you see rapid, perpetuating growth and are seeing it go 1M-10M-100M and somebody offers you $25M, you still sign that check. Once you hit the "set for life" level, if you get an offer you should tap out. Ego is what keeps you from taking a "low" number like $25M (or $3B).
Slashdot Mirror
They did NOT say that the goal was to realize a loss, just that profit was not the reason for the acquisition.
It should be noted that the loss realized is probably less than the gross federal revenue of the direct GM employees and supply contractors (parts and services) during that time, not including second tier effects like money spent by the employees or default losses on mortgages owned by fannie/freddy. (figure 200,000 direct and 200,000 immediate contract workers, $60k avg at 10% effective gross tax rate over 5 years = $12B)
Replace Amazon with Modern, and you'll cover more ground while being just as accurate. Actually, on reflection, there's no need to modify the subject - Workers... is historically accurate for most of organized human civilization.
It doesn't matter if FSM gets a pile of spaghetti or a pirate or a midget on a mountain - I'm in for $100 to memorialize it in granite!
See, if they spy on Americans, they could get in trouble. See, as an intelligence agency, there are limits on what they can do wrt Americans, and if you ahve an American server and an American person of interest, then you have to do a bunch of paper work and go to a secret court and it's just a big pain in the ass.
BUT if you ship everything overseas, then it's fully within plausible deniability in harvesting all of the information from a source controlled by a foreign national. Once it goes off shore, the drag net gets to sift through everything. The NSA's mission is to sift through every scrap of data they can get ahold of. The only people who would want non-American servers are non-Americans, because they have no protections whatsoever. Americans *should* want American servers as there's a whole judicial process involved once everything is under US jurisdiction. That won't stop the NSA from "accidentally" combing though your stuff, but if they screw up even a little bit then a good lawyer can have it all thrown out.
Ethical doctors treat the wounded on both sides. Can most (military) weapon designers make the same claim?
I promise you that corporations sell military technology to every nation which wishes to defend itself (and is not in direct conflict with the defense limitations of their own/home nation).
All weapons of war are built for defensive purposes, even if it looks to the outside as if they are being used offensively. Sometimes, in war, offence is necessary to protect and secure your homeland.
That depends on your viewpoint. If you make weapons which assure the destruction of the other party, you may be preventing a war from being started. Your weapons may be used offensively, but the intent is to protect (if you're an American) 300 million US citizens from attack by outside agents.
In fact, it could be argued that if you DON'T do your job and produce weapons, you make your country (any country) a sitting duck for a takeover by an "evil" country who does produce weapons.
'Tis a very gray line
...who cares vere zay come down.
Zat's not my department,"
says Werner Von Braun.
Given your alternative, that Taco Bell hacienda style isn't *that* bad.
Just checking - the carriers are all tracking our movements as well, and using the data for profit.
I understand the outrage over the NSA doing it, I'm just checking to see if we're all fine with the corporations doing the same thing for profit as part of our wonder free-market society.
So you spoof the GPS to be within the dead reckoning band of the IMU and wind allowances (which can't easily be accounted for). It takes longer to hijack and transfer to a safe spot for collection, but not out of the bounds of possibility.
They are when you drive 100+MPH on a surface street, though!
And they would have gotten out alive, or at least not burned to a crisp. Tesla's don't burn their occupants in a massive fireball when they hit a street sign (and a tree, and a light pole).
And 600HP is nothing. I've got a good friend from college who gets almost 1200HP in his GTR (1192 WHP / 1402 crank, actually). I don't see him wrapping it around vertical objects.
It depends on where you are. Some states tax property, some sales, some income, some intangibles (stocks/bonds). Each state has a mix it feels is the fairest and/or most effective for them.
This is a case of interstate commerce. And for 100 years the standard has been no tax is collected by the retailer unless they have a nexus in the state. The purpose for the nexus rule is that if you are actively serving customers intrastate, you have to obey the laws of the state. The implication is that if you have enough people here to have a store, you have enough to figure out local sales tax.
This is EXACTLY the kind of issue the Feds should be deciding, as the states all have different regulations regarding it. Of all the things that matter in interstate commerce, this is one of the truly important ones where the representatives of the collection of states should agree on a standard.
At least they don't hard code their !@#$%%# subtitles before the upload their rips. Even they're not that discourteous.
Keynesian is an epithet nowadays? Only if you're in the Tea Party movement. This would be the second time it has "worked", with actual unemployment and general market outlook increasing as a result of federal stimulus (aka wonton spending). It actually has sent money to infrastructure. Given that the collapse eliminated trillions upon trillions of dollars of "equity," and was the biggest collapse since 1929 (which took close to 15 years of stimulus to dig out of).
People forget that the unemployment rate today is the same as it was in 1993 and lower than it was through most of the 80s, even though we peaked (in 2009) at the second highest unemployment rate since 1948. 4 years of Keynesian economics and we're back to normal - not awesome, but normal. And before you break out the "people who gave up searching" line, people give up in every economy. There are people who just don't fit the current market needs, or get frustrated and don't get hired. It happens in a red-hot economy with 4% unemployment just like it does with 8-10%.
The market is, to some extent, a false indicator of the health of the economy. Nonetheless,your working man recovery requires that companies need the working pan to produce. We've learned that we don't need a chunk of our current workforce to meet demand - they were just unnecessary overhead during the boom years. Now that we've learned to be a little less fat, corporately speaking, we can do well without as many employees. It's gonna be a rough ride...
1st) Carrying literature which is contrary to the government is still free speech, and could be transported out of harms way
2nd If there's a specific exception for compartments for carrying firearms, he merely needs to mention his desire to get one
4th) Possibly relevant, but that will depend on the specific facts at trial. Indeed.
9th) Got me, too.
I would expect the 5th to show up, though. He is under no requirement that he even say what it was to be used for. The prosecution will have to show that he intended to carry illegal drugs in the compartment. That's hard to do if there is an absence of drug traffiking in his life.
One dollar => one ad / one show / one network => one vote.
Ads, and television in general, do not need to be truthful, just entertaining. If you've seen most of the voters out there you would know how easily swayed they are by what the see on television and what they hear on the radio. I would wager that if you took the Ds and Rs off the ballots, you'd find that the first person listed would win nearly every single election. People just do do any research. Never have, never will. It's one of the primarily reasons the electoral college is used - the founders simply didn't trust the people to make the most basic of informed decisions.
Patents already cover most implementations of GPUs within CPUs. But the field is wide open if you start embedding CPUs in GPUs. It's like "on the internet," but with uprocessors.
I'll just call you blind to the facts, if that's okay. I'd say, based on the linked information below, that warming is continuing.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
And, let's face it: you can argue that the cause is somewhat irrelevant. What is hard to argue with is that a change in the environment will destabilize the existing geopolitical conditions, which are relatively constrained at the moment. If you believe in the free market and capitalism, you know that change in market conditions is mostly bad for the vast majority of people. If we identify those things which will minimize the change, that will maximize overall stability as well as returns.
Unless, of course, you believe - like much of the human population - that you are part of some chosen, elite subset (or will be very, very soon). In which case you don't understand statistics, and hence can't even comprehend why everything I've said above should apply to you. And you never will.
Which wouldn't work if, as the OP mentioned, they call with a different number each time.
A Russian roulette duel? You both have one bullet and fire at the same time? While driving towards one another? Do you shoot at each other, or in the traditional fashion (at yourself)?
Let us the best survive?
"... to find out that their users still want to be able to sell used games..."
Shhhh - don't tell anyone, but they knew that all along. If they thought their users wouldn't want to there would be no need to cut off that non-residual revenue source, would there?
Or 1/6 the cost of the software the runs the entire medicare/medicaid/ACA system which manages 1000X the entire development cost ($600B+) of all the software every.single.year.
I wonder, does the XBOX eco system generate $100 Billion a year? If not, maybe MS should farm out their work to gov't contractors. It's not like MS won't fuck it up anyway - might as well get it cheaper.
It's part of their training. In fact, it's part of basic psychology. To control a situation, you have to be ready at any moment to command, and working from a position of strength is far more useful than working from a position of deliberation when you're talking about even a relatively peaceful crowd. That's not to say you didn't happen to ask an asshole where the train station was. However; if he was in the process of tracking anything out of the ordinary, your request falls just below "I don't care" on his list of priorities.
On the contrary, I was recently pulled over (for speeding*, it was my once-a-decade slip) in the middle of Virginia, pretty far out in the sticks. Once I'd spent 30 seconds creating a rapport with him, he was cheerful and helped me find the exit I need to get to my event - and even suggested a route that would avoid both construction and a local speed trap area. There ARE bad cops, but most of them just play Bad Cop as part of an ongoing proactive/defensive strategy they learn in the academy.
*I actually passed the undercover cruiser and didn't realize it until it was too late...because I was distracted and messing with my in-dash GPS which was giving me weird directions. I decided that "sorry, I didn't realize I was speeding because I wasn't paying any attention to the road" was a poor defense, and simply said I'd taken the truck off cruise control because I thought I'd missed my exit - resulting in me not paying attention to my speed as I was trying to read the road signs up ahead.
You sell when either (a) you feel the price is indicative of the value or (b) you have enough to retire and spend your days working (or not working) on whatever the fuck you feel like. And, for the record, it's the lower of those two values you should accept. That's where the snapchat folks failed.
If you really feel that it's only worth 100k, sign the contract. If it's "worth" $100k, then going from 100k-$1M-$10M takes resources - probably resources you don't have. OTOH, if you see rapid, perpetuating growth and are seeing it go 1M-10M-100M and somebody offers you $25M, you still sign that check. Once you hit the "set for life" level, if you get an offer you should tap out. Ego is what keeps you from taking a "low" number like $25M (or $3B).