After its sports team wins a championship, let alone experienced a major disruption like the Rodney King riots in LA. We have a lot of knotheads here in the US just waiting for a reason to be knotheaded. That's what hollowpoints are for.
But hedged their bets by giving some to McCain, who ironically was leading in the polls until Lehman failed. Maybe these Goldman analysts are pretty damn smart after all. "Hey, we banks are a house of cards about to implode, so let's go with the guy who won't get blamed as 'Bush's third term.'" But just in case, we'll throw McCain some scraps as well.
Goldman Sachs: Recipients
2008 Cycle
Senate Obama, Barack (D-IL) $995,745
Senate Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $401,950
Delegate Romney, Mitt (R) $235,275
Senate McCain, John (R-AZ) $234,695
House Himes, Jim (D-CT) $150,498
Senate Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $112,500 (co-architect of "Dodd-Frank" watered-down financial regulation bill)
As his Treasury Secretary's chief of staff. How's that for influence? And GE's CEO is on his economic team.
Question for you: If money doesn't buy influence, why do companies donate to candidates? And don't say because they are true believers - most donate to both sides.
I'm no fan of the investment banks - I think they have long passed from capitalists to parasites on real business.
But, in fairness, if the Fed hadn't pumped the credit bubble with low interest rates, Fannie and Freddie hadn't helped by pumping it further by buying endless questionable loans, letting banks make more loans that they simply couldn't have otherwise, and had greedy home "buyers" not bought homes they couldn't afford, thinking they'd flip them anyway for a profit, those derivatives that Goldman traded would have been pretty good investments. Had the ratings agencies been accurate, many of the derivatives would not have been marketable anyway.
A perfect storm of clusterfuck. Plenty of blame to go around.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
"Do you have references for this. In most markets it is the low end that contributes the most to the bottom line simply because the volumes are magnitudes higher than the high-end."
Well, in the US, Trek dominates, and Schwinn was sold at bankruptcy auction. Obviously, in developing countries, they want cheap-ass commodity bikes.
"Of course, economies of scale will in practical terms mean replacing the printed parts with injection molded parts. Economies of scale isn't magic"
I never suggested magic. Prices of manufacturing equipment drop with scale (and time) as well. Scanners used to be $2000. Now they are like $75. As I said, CINC machines now can be bought by hobbyists.
"this kind of manufacturing is still incredibly slow and expensive. This is still proof of concept for consumer items"
Spoken like a non-cyclist. The most lucrative market in bicycles isn't cheap commodity bikes like Schwinns, it's in lightweight road enthusiast and racing bikes. Price isn't the determining factor, which is why bicycle companies can charge thousands for carbon fiber frames.
Besides, if adopted, economy of scale would drop price dramatically. Prototypes are always more expensive than real-world products. CINC machines used to cost millions. Now I know a guy with one in his home's garage - he machines custom CAD-designed copper evaporator heads for phase-change computer cooling units.
Now farm subsidies are a Republican fetish? Since when? It's both sides of the aisle pandering to the Iowa caucuses that keep farm subsidies alive.
As for DoD, well that's what the Constitution actually says Congress is supposed to spend money on. I'd prefer not to imagine the world without 11 Nimitz-class carriers floating about.
And what do you think happens when people save money (they don't put it under their mattresses)? It goes in the bank. The bank can make more loans, a huge problem ATM. And investment? Oh noes, more investment in stocks and bonds, which turn into R&D and expansion and jobs.
I guess it's much better when the government "stimulates" (more like sedates) the economy by stealing from the private sector and sending out one-time checks. It's like giving yourself a transfusion from your right arm to your left arm, and spilling half the blood on the floor.
And BTW, Reagan and Clinton cut cap gains, and the economy flourished each time. How anyone can look at the Reagan era and say "trickle down" didn't work is laughable. 19 straight years of Dow growth (1981-1999), after 20 flat years.
I guess Apple - whose legal obligation is to maximize shareholder value, is just supposed to violate its fiduciary duties and give away its products and its 100+ million credit card database for free.
Can I come over to your place of business and demand to pay nothing for your services? Or are you evil too?
When Apple spies on people and customers, and capitulates to Chinese censorship demands like Google, then call me.
No, he's saying that you retain all of your original rights but that you should not gain a second voice and set of rights simply by creating a legal fiction
I see, so unions and political parties and organizations like the ACLU and NAACP and NRA, also created by "legal fictions" known as the "non-profit corporation" should apparently have no such rights either? Or is your constitutional interpretation that the concept of profit is somehow a magical right-vitiater?
which exists solely as a remnant of 1600s era Venetian business practices.
Uh, no, corporations do not exist "solely as a remnant of 1600s era Venetian business practices." They have evolved over centuries and have little to do with the ancient forms and are quite essential to modern business. Corporations are designed to allow a business to limit liability and raise capital in the modern era, allowing for undertakings that would be difficult or impossible to do without the corporate structure. Just because you have some irrational opposition to them does not mean they are without merits or modern purpose.
"No, you can still donate with your own money, what right do you lose?"
My right to use the profits of my corporation to exercize my right to petition my government? My right to freely associate with others and not lose my right to freedom of expression. Unions and the NAACP and other organizations have said rights, but simply because I incorporate, an organization you don't like, it's somehow different? Where does it say in the First Amendment that Asic Eng gets to decide who has rights?
"Freedom of association (which is a political right, though not part of the US constitution btw)"
Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. So yeah, it's a constitutional right. In that case, revealing the names of members of the NAACP would have led to their persecution.
"There is nothing wrong with you associating in a political organization to elect John Doe III for senate. There is a lot wrong with you becoming the CEO of a health insurance company and using your company's profits to funnel money to his election campaign"
Ah, I see, so *you* get to decide who gets to say what, and what kind of political activity is permissible in a free society. A group I disagree with can form a PAC solely designed to tax or regulate or even banish my company, but my organization doesn't have the right to advocate against it, because you don't like my industry. Sorry, under the First Amendment, we don't allow subject-based or content-based censorship. It's the speech you *don't* agree with that must be protected in a free society.
People should not lose their rights simply because of how they choose to associate or form their business organizations. It's called "freedom of association" in the First Amendment. By your logic, if I am a small business owner I can do whatever I want, but as soon as I incorporate for limited liability purposes, I lose my rights?
Just be sure you take those collective rights away from the ACLU, the NRA, the NAACP, the NY Times, the AFL-CIO, and Slashdot while you're at it.
Could you please find for me in the Constitution where it says that people lose their rights when they decide to incorporate? I thought the purpose of the government allowing incorporation was to expand the rights of business owners (e.g., limited liability, increased capital investment).
I recall a story last year about MS posting anonymously in forums, and everyone here seemed to be against it. Seems Slashdotters are all for anonymous speech, unless it is someone they disagree with like Microsoft. And don't give me the "corporations" aren't people line. They are owned and run by people.
Slashdot Mirror
After its sports team wins a championship, let alone experienced a major disruption like the Rodney King riots in LA. We have a lot of knotheads here in the US just waiting for a reason to be knotheaded. That's what hollowpoints are for.
But hedged their bets by giving some to McCain, who ironically was leading in the polls until Lehman failed. Maybe these Goldman analysts are pretty damn smart after all. "Hey, we banks are a house of cards about to implode, so let's go with the guy who won't get blamed as 'Bush's third term.'" But just in case, we'll throw McCain some scraps as well.
Goldman Sachs: Recipients
2008 Cycle
Senate Obama, Barack (D-IL) $995,745
Senate Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $401,950
Delegate Romney, Mitt (R) $235,275
Senate McCain, John (R-AZ) $234,695
House Himes, Jim (D-CT) $150,498
Senate Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $112,500 (co-architect of "Dodd-Frank" watered-down financial regulation bill)
As his Treasury Secretary's chief of staff. How's that for influence? And GE's CEO is on his economic team.
Question for you: If money doesn't buy influence, why do companies donate to candidates? And don't say because they are true believers - most donate to both sides.
I'm no fan of the investment banks - I think they have long passed from capitalists to parasites on real business.
But, in fairness, if the Fed hadn't pumped the credit bubble with low interest rates, Fannie and Freddie hadn't helped by pumping it further by buying endless questionable loans, letting banks make more loans that they simply couldn't have otherwise, and had greedy home "buyers" not bought homes they couldn't afford, thinking they'd flip them anyway for a profit, those derivatives that Goldman traded would have been pretty good investments. Had the ratings agencies been accurate, many of the derivatives would not have been marketable anyway.
A perfect storm of clusterfuck. Plenty of blame to go around.
A million dollars buys you a lot.
Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
from supersonic rounds like rifle fire, unlike subsonic rounds such as 9mm pistol fire.
was a personal gunshot detector.
Since when should countries give away their technology because of fear of lawyers? OK, this is Slashdot, so I'd better re-word that.
I've been using a Slingbox for years. It streams your TV feed over the Net. You can even use it to control your TiVo, and change channels remotely.
Great technology for those who must have access to their boob tube when away from home.
Don't forget the "generic nerd" that Goldblum played. World, er, universe-class hacker, and geek of all trades. The guy could do everything.
"Do you have references for this. In most markets it is the low end that contributes the most to the bottom line simply because the volumes are magnitudes higher than the high-end."
Well, in the US, Trek dominates, and Schwinn was sold at bankruptcy auction. Obviously, in developing countries, they want cheap-ass commodity bikes.
"Of course, economies of scale will in practical terms mean replacing the printed parts with injection molded parts. Economies of scale isn't magic"
I never suggested magic. Prices of manufacturing equipment drop with scale (and time) as well. Scanners used to be $2000. Now they are like $75. As I said, CINC machines now can be bought by hobbyists.
"this kind of manufacturing is still incredibly slow and expensive. This is still proof of concept for consumer items"
Spoken like a non-cyclist. The most lucrative market in bicycles isn't cheap commodity bikes like Schwinns, it's in lightweight road enthusiast and racing bikes. Price isn't the determining factor, which is why bicycle companies can charge thousands for carbon fiber frames.
Besides, if adopted, economy of scale would drop price dramatically. Prototypes are always more expensive than real-world products. CINC machines used to cost millions. Now I know a guy with one in his home's garage - he machines custom CAD-designed copper evaporator heads for phase-change computer cooling units.
"According to several interviews with director Ridley Scott, Deckard is indeed a replicant."
Put me down as not happy they are doing these pre/sequels.
Now farm subsidies are a Republican fetish? Since when? It's both sides of the aisle pandering to the Iowa caucuses that keep farm subsidies alive.
As for DoD, well that's what the Constitution actually says Congress is supposed to spend money on. I'd prefer not to imagine the world without 11 Nimitz-class carriers floating about.
And tax breaks for the rich? They pay all the taxes (the top-5% pays almost 68% of the taxes!), so they are likely candidates for tax breaks.
And what do you think happens when people save money (they don't put it under their mattresses)? It goes in the bank. The bank can make more loans, a huge problem ATM. And investment? Oh noes, more investment in stocks and bonds, which turn into R&D and expansion and jobs.
I guess it's much better when the government "stimulates" (more like sedates) the economy by stealing from the private sector and sending out one-time checks. It's like giving yourself a transfusion from your right arm to your left arm, and spilling half the blood on the floor.
And BTW, Reagan and Clinton cut cap gains, and the economy flourished each time. How anyone can look at the Reagan era and say "trickle down" didn't work is laughable. 19 straight years of Dow growth (1981-1999), after 20 flat years.
and big government for the other guy I disagree with.
I guess Apple - whose legal obligation is to maximize shareholder value, is just supposed to violate its fiduciary duties and give away its products and its 100+ million credit card database for free.
Can I come over to your place of business and demand to pay nothing for your services? Or are you evil too?
When Apple spies on people and customers, and capitulates to Chinese censorship demands like Google, then call me.
No, he's saying that you retain all of your original rights but that you should not gain a second voice and set of rights simply by creating a legal fiction
I see, so unions and political parties and organizations like the ACLU and NAACP and NRA, also created by "legal fictions" known as the "non-profit corporation" should apparently have no such rights either? Or is your constitutional interpretation that the concept of profit is somehow a magical right-vitiater?
which exists solely as a remnant of 1600s era Venetian business practices.
Uh, no, corporations do not exist "solely as a remnant of 1600s era Venetian business practices." They have evolved over centuries and have little to do with the ancient forms and are quite essential to modern business. Corporations are designed to allow a business to limit liability and raise capital in the modern era, allowing for undertakings that would be difficult or impossible to do without the corporate structure. Just because you have some irrational opposition to them does not mean they are without merits or modern purpose.
"No, you can still donate with your own money, what right do you lose?"
My right to use the profits of my corporation to exercize my right to petition my government? My right to freely associate with others and not lose my right to freedom of expression. Unions and the NAACP and other organizations have said rights, but simply because I incorporate, an organization you don't like, it's somehow different? Where does it say in the First Amendment that Asic Eng gets to decide who has rights?
"Freedom of association (which is a political right, though not part of the US constitution btw)"
Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. So yeah, it's a constitutional right. In that case, revealing the names of members of the NAACP would have led to their persecution.
"There is nothing wrong with you associating in a political organization to elect John Doe III for senate. There is a lot wrong with you becoming the CEO of a health insurance company and using your company's profits to funnel money to his election campaign"
Ah, I see, so *you* get to decide who gets to say what, and what kind of political activity is permissible in a free society. A group I disagree with can form a PAC solely designed to tax or regulate or even banish my company, but my organization doesn't have the right to advocate against it, because you don't like my industry. Sorry, under the First Amendment, we don't allow subject-based or content-based censorship. It's the speech you *don't* agree with that must be protected in a free society.
Just be sure you take those collective rights away from the ACLU, the NRA, the NAACP, the NY Times, the AFL-CIO, and Slashdot while you're at it.
Could you please find for me in the Constitution where it says that people lose their rights when they decide to incorporate? I thought the purpose of the government allowing incorporation was to expand the rights of business owners (e.g., limited liability, increased capital investment).
I recall a story last year about MS posting anonymously in forums, and everyone here seemed to be against it. Seems Slashdotters are all for anonymous speech, unless it is someone they disagree with like Microsoft. And don't give me the "corporations" aren't people line. They are owned and run by people.
PeerBlock is also your friend.
But it would be a lot easier not to drive to my house and just be with the colleague.
What two consenting planets do doesn't affect other planets' orbits.