If they reevaluate the shares at zero, you took a loss, it's reportable for your taxes, so you'll essentially get back the taxes you paid previously (modulo differing tax rates).
They can't legally get away with dissolving the company with shares outstanding. Either those shares get sold, or the company continues to pay taxes, or you report them to the feds and they go to jail.
If there's a reputable scientific resource that agrees with his position he should cite it. So far it seems like the only reputable resource anyone has been able to cite (the MSDS) disagrees with him.
That one, as far as I know, was just made up, and was more likely to have been picked by an artist than a programmer, so I don't think so. We didn't have meetings to pick all the names or anything, but ones that were named after people usually got discussed around the office. I don't remember overhearing anything interesting about that one, but it has been a long time.
Yes Crick. Which people still remember right now because they learned it in school. But the current generation in school has textbooks that say Watson.
And of course, there were in fact a number of other people with significant involvement, in some cases maybe more important than Watson or Crick, but history must choose who is to be remembered, and who to be forgotten.
My point is that it's not... go follow the google link I provided. Most of the citations are for Watson only on the first page. And the trend is headed pretty fast in that direction.
I'm actually talking about history and what winds up in the history books. This may be about to undergo a sea change because the internet allows deep references to be maintained at low cost, but if it doesn't, there is a tendency for events to be simplified down the further in the past they are.
History isn't what happened. It's a story about what happened, invariably significantly fictional. Humans simply aren't capable of absorbing enough information for it to be anything else.
Re:Missed the Issue
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Even before we ask that question: if the earth gets both hotter and cooler, does it matter? Who cares if we have an impact if it doesn't matter?
I'm just saying the trend is there, not that it has reached its culmination. History gradually reduces all events to accomplishments by one person. In a hundred years or so, it will take effort to find out that there was a person named Crick involved.
You should go argue in the discussion, which currently states:
Distinctive odor of ethanol?
As students we did class experiments on this. Statistically, the smeller could not distinguish between ethanol, methanol and isopropyl alcohol. Nor could they distinguish the breath smell of persons who had been given a glass of alcohol-free beer or ordinary alcoholic beer. The ketotic diabetic is often described as having the "odour of alcohol" (ketones). So from where the "distinctive odor"? Is there a reference? It seems to me to be a general sort of "alcohol-ish smell sensation", not distinctive of ethanol at all. --Seejyb 10:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
what? no way. EtOH absolutely has a distinctive odor. maybe the students in your class were not accustomed to the specific odor of alcohol solvents but it is certainly different than isoprop. and MeOH. I often work with these three chemicals (and acetone) and the difference in odor between all of them is very VERY readily detectable. --Deglr6328 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
agreed, isopropyl alcholol and ethanol are entirely different odors. Ethanol is a less pungent sweet odor where as a isopropyl (rubbing alcohol) has a much more prominent harsh pungent odor. Kyanite 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the same thing that happened to that other guy who made the discovery of 'Watson's Double Helix of DNA'. Eventually, history just decides that having more than one person be responsible for any given thing is too complicated for kids to remember.
You're welcome! Releasing the game and having lots of people love it was kind of the only reward, sadly, promised bonuses didn't work out due to financial shenanigans at the parent company.
I'm not sure about the legality of that, but at best that would potentially give them control over the direction of the company, but none of the tax benefits of combining operations. The 'bought' company is still an existing entity, legally speaking. They'd be subject to lawsuits if they then did naughtiness with the remaining stock.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious why. The scientific studies in support of astrology are stronger than those for Santa Clause.
But a recent study showed that most studies aren't reproducible, which means that by default you should assume that all science is wrong.
I think by evidence of his post, he was in fact correct, and you got it wrong.
If they reevaluate the shares at zero, you took a loss, it's reportable for your taxes, so you'll essentially get back the taxes you paid previously (modulo differing tax rates).
They can't legally get away with dissolving the company with shares outstanding. Either those shares get sold, or the company continues to pay taxes, or you report them to the feds and they go to jail.
If there's a reputable scientific resource that agrees with his position he should cite it. So far it seems like the only reputable resource anyone has been able to cite (the MSDS) disagrees with him.
http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/ethanol.htm
"
Physical State: Liquid
Appearance: clear, colorless
Odor: aromatic odor
"
That one, as far as I know, was just made up, and was more likely to have been picked by an artist than a programmer, so I don't think so. We didn't have meetings to pick all the names or anything, but ones that were named after people usually got discussed around the office. I don't remember overhearing anything interesting about that one, but it has been a long time.
I'm pretty sure I would not care if that were the case.
Yes Crick. Which people still remember right now because they learned it in school. But the current generation in school has textbooks that say Watson.
And of course, there were in fact a number of other people with significant involvement, in some cases maybe more important than Watson or Crick, but history must choose who is to be remembered, and who to be forgotten.
You probably meant to answer the great-grandparent rather than me.
2: Require them to do so.
3: Don't pay them to do so.
4: Profit!
My point is that it's not ... go follow the google link I provided. Most of the citations are for Watson only on the first page. And the trend is headed pretty fast in that direction.
So they improved the article. Isn't that how wikipedia is supposed to work?
I'm actually talking about history and what winds up in the history books. This may be about to undergo a sea change because the internet allows deep references to be maintained at low cost, but if it doesn't, there is a tendency for events to be simplified down the further in the past they are.
History isn't what happened. It's a story about what happened, invariably significantly fictional. Humans simply aren't capable of absorbing enough information for it to be anything else.
Even before we ask that question: if the earth gets both hotter and cooler, does it matter?
Who cares if we have an impact if it doesn't matter?
I'm just saying the trend is there, not that it has reached its culmination. History gradually reduces all events to accomplishments by one person. In a hundred years or so, it will take effort to find out that there was a person named Crick involved.
http://www.google.com/search?q=who+discovered+dna&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
That's a google search for who discovered DNA.
If crick is listed at all, he is listed second in every case on the first page of results.
You should go argue in the discussion, which currently states:
Distinctive odor of ethanol?
As students we did class experiments on this. Statistically, the smeller could not distinguish between ethanol, methanol and isopropyl alcohol. Nor could they distinguish the breath smell of persons who had been given a glass of alcohol-free beer or ordinary alcoholic beer. The ketotic diabetic is often described as having the "odour of alcohol" (ketones). So from where the "distinctive odor"? Is there a reference? It seems to me to be a general sort of "alcohol-ish smell sensation", not distinctive of ethanol at all. --Seejyb 10:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
what? no way. EtOH absolutely has a distinctive odor. maybe the students in your class were not accustomed to the specific odor of alcohol solvents but it is certainly different than isoprop. and MeOH. I often work with these three chemicals (and acetone) and the difference in odor between all of them is very VERY readily detectable. --Deglr6328 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
agreed, isopropyl alcholol and ethanol are entirely different odors. Ethanol is a less pungent sweet odor where as a isopropyl (rubbing alcohol) has a much more prominent harsh pungent odor. Kyanite 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the same thing that happened to that other guy who made the discovery of 'Watson's Double Helix of DNA'.
Eventually, history just decides that having more than one person be responsible for any given thing is too complicated for kids to remember.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
He has dated 43 reasonably well known supermodels, so I'd say pretty far.
In the long run, though, it would be less expensive to buy out the shares, which is why, I presume, no one does this. It might well even be illegal.
There's one sneaking up behind you. No he moved just when you turned, now he's on the other side. He's going to get you! Run! The rock does nothing!
Whoosh!
But security through open source doesn't work either. I mean seriously, who would trust defense secrets to a bunch of hippies? Seriously!
You're welcome! Releasing the game and having lots of people love it was kind of the only reward, sadly, promised bonuses didn't work out due to financial shenanigans at the parent company.
I'm not sure about the legality of that, but at best that would potentially give them control over the direction of the company, but none of the tax benefits of combining operations. The 'bought' company is still an existing entity, legally speaking. They'd be subject to lawsuits if they then did naughtiness with the remaining stock.