If the 1 million shares represented a significant stake in the company(or even just a decent chunk of the float), it wouldn't take until Monday for the market to react, it would take about 4 seconds after the shares were put up for sale. 'Savvy' market participants that had good reason to believe that the sale was not based on substantial information(rather, they might think he was just-a-doin-it for a cottage) would take substantial risks in buying the stock as the price slipped below the market price from before the CEO initiated his sale, which would, in turn, prop up the price.
You are proposing a doomsday interpretation of what might happen if everybody but the CEO and his broker was a screaming moron, and conflating the issues surrounding regulating transparency with the issues surrounding insider trading. If insiders were legally required to disclose a reason for sales, and faced actual consequences for making false statements, the room that an insider would have to manipulate the market would be very small(because the market would not take several days to integrate the information, most trading would be done in full knowledge of the information, rather than under whatever false picture).
And there is a cost to limiting insider transactions, it prevents a CEO who absolutely knows that his company is worth X dollars a share from taking advantage of a dip in the market, an action that would *always* improve that market situation for that stock. So the regulation isn't purely beneficial and at least needs to stand up to some cost-benefit analysis(given the outsize risks most small investors tend to take, it is probably a net benefit to have rules that slow down insiders).
They have a great quality control mechanism though, they taste each batch before they decide which bottles/cans to put it in, and we get Milwaukee's Best and Busch out of the bargain. At least, that's the only explanation I can come up with for Milwaukee's Best and Busch.
A lot of the 'this' wonkiness comes from implementation mistakes, and it is getting fixed(which, in the context of javascript being hard to replace in the browser space, is a good thing).
That's a stupid analogy. Anyway, the casino doesn't know what the cards are, they know what the odds and payouts are that day, so if you know the floor boss often plays on good days, you can decide to play based on whether he is playing or not.
Also, virus writers should make sure that any email with their payload contains some nice text explaining that it has been scanned and is free of viruses.
Users aren't generally going to go through the process of authenticating a message in a rigorous manner. Text in the message body is worthless.
A Free Software implementation that is better for users than either Flash or Silverlight. Since they are already free for users, cost isn't a huge factor, and since(judging based on current behavior) users seem a lot more concerned about the value they perceive some software to provide than they care about "Freedom", the easiest(perhaps only) way to win is to be better.
Ruby isn't an extension of Java. One implementation of Ruby runs on the JVM, but there are several other implementations of Ruby. It provides a nice contrast to Java. Perl and Python are much like Ruby(Perl is Perl, Python tends to help the reader more than the writer, Ruby tends to help the writer more than the reader).
Postscript is more obscure than it is proprietary(e.g. Ghostscript implements it, but it isn't a very common choice for general programming tasks).
Lisp/Prolog/Haskell/etc. are more valuable for the things they teach you than for marketability, but knowing stuff is a good way to make big bucks.
Erlang is only going to stay interesting to the extent that other languages fail to come up with/bolt on similar concurrency features(its current implementation targets a fairly narrow niche and it can be awkward in other uses).
D isn't really all that different from C/C++, and isn't going to be a huge boost to your marketability, learn it if you like it and want to use it for something.
Actually, I misreported the basis for the numbers(I hope you will believe it was unintentional, because it was unintentional). The basis for those numbers is household income, not wages.
Besides, it still stands that less than half of the people in this country are paying more than 80% of the taxes, and it is the rich doing it, not the poor. And I'll repeat myself: I'm not trying to argue about the fairness of the current structure, I'm pointing out that the vast majority of federal tax revenue is coming from people that it is very difficult to label as lower income. So I understand that someone could argue that the current structure is overly burdensome on lower income brackets(I don't happen to think so), but it isn't sensible to argue that lower income earners are paying most of the taxes, because they aren't.
It's more than that, it is also elitist, they are only paying university students.
Of course, since a big goal of the programs is to engage university students, complaining about the fact that the program engages university students is pretty much insane. Next, you should take on those bastards at your local grade schools, I bet they wouldn't welcome your dad into their classes as a student.
So if Diesel Dave had assigned copyright to the FSF, and then these fellas had taken that code and forked it, and then the case happened, he would be better off how?
I don't even see how it would make users of the code better off, or the code-itself 'better off' (quotes because the code isn't quite an entity).
All you are doing is making a tiresome distinction between nominal and actual costs of going to court. Each of the issues you bring up can be described in terms of dollars(or at least estimated in a hand wavy fashion), and then as a cost of going to court.
Umm, I'm not talking about rates, I'm talking about where the tax dollars are coming from, and more than 65% of all federal tax dollars are coming from people with income greater than $230,000, and a little more than 84% of federal tax dollars are coming from people with income greater than $85,000.
Not discussing the fairness, or what proportion would be appropriate, pointing out the current breakdown and how it is a little hard to argue that the poor are bearing the 'burden'. You can argue that they should have even lower tax rates, but you can't argue that they are paying most of the taxes(because 60% of the population is paying 15% of the taxes).
The gist of it is that the benefits of a couple splitting breadwinning and domestic roles decrease when the domestic role gets easier, so some people tend to put off entering into a relationship that they are not certain of.
I'm 10 years out of high school, and dozens of the people I graduated with have children, out of several hundred, so not everybody is waiting.
The top 40% of wage earners(people making more than $85,000) pay nearly 85% of federal taxes.
They pay a smaller share of medicare/medicaid and social security, because of the income caps, but they still pay the maximum rates for those programs(and a person earning $100,000 is paying more than 2 people earning $40,000 each)
I guess you could argue that the wealthy should be paying even more, but it's a tough sell claiming that lower incomes are bearing most of the burden.
The laptop sitting in front of me has a Vista capable sticker on it. I was never really under the impression that it would be a good fit. It was a stupid marketing program, but the information that it wouldn't be the 'full' Vista experience was out there, I knew it, and I was barely paying attention.
There aren't any spaced based weapons because they are only marginally better than ballistic missiles(which can reach anywhere, just not quite as quickly as something already in orbit) and would cost much more for each unit of capability. Submarines offer some of the time advantage and are much stealthier than a satellite.
Also, military planners aren't insane, so they take into account how much safer it is to ship highly radioactive material around on the ground and stick it in holes than it is to shoot it into space.
I'd be surprised if less than 1/2 of the existing capability was online at a given moment.
Evolution doesn't happen along cleanly defined lines; lots of people are trotting out cancer as an easy problem to relate to regeneration, but it doesn't need to be anywhere near that complex. It could be as simple as the developments leading to warm blooded metabolism accidentally turning off regeneration, so as those organisms took over niches where being exothermic was a big advantage, regeneration disappeared.
So the breakage of the regeneration mechanism could be completely incidental, even if was advantageous, if some species with broken regeneration evolved some other mechanism that conferred a larger advantage.
Unfortunately(I guess), that's their goal. If you don't want to look at advertising, they aren't worried about getting you to look at content.
I say "I guess" because somebody has to pay for something somewhere, and the way they do advertising in search, I wouldn't pay very much to get rid of it. For video of any length, they are competing against free(p2p) and $3 DVD rentals, so they can really only screw it up the experience so much before people walk away. For short videos, the ads better not exceed a small fraction of the length of the video.
My point was more that if it was of reasonable practical value to count circumference-diameter ratios of things rather than units of things, there would probably be a coherent way of doing it laid out. Since it isn't useful(well, except in relation to counting things as units, hence pi), and counting things is useful, well, there we are.
1/pi, 2/pi, pi, pi+1/pi, pi+2/pi. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to use a system that can only express a single unit as pi/pi, but I'm pretty sure you could come up with a coherent system. (and if pi were often needed beyond 5 or 10 base 10 digits, somebody would probably work it out)
(Click 'Show' off to the right of "United States Annual Economic Data")
It does this nice thing where it pretty much only ever increases.
It's important to remember that even though unemployment has drifted over a fairly tight range(say 4%-8%, most of the time), that due to population growth, there have been something like 45 million new jobs created in the last 50 years.
Sure, gone are the days where you graduate high school and go get a job at the plant, but the US isn't in the midst of some horrible economic decline and inevitable stagnation.
Slashdot Mirror
If the 1 million shares represented a significant stake in the company(or even just a decent chunk of the float), it wouldn't take until Monday for the market to react, it would take about 4 seconds after the shares were put up for sale. 'Savvy' market participants that had good reason to believe that the sale was not based on substantial information(rather, they might think he was just-a-doin-it for a cottage) would take substantial risks in buying the stock as the price slipped below the market price from before the CEO initiated his sale, which would, in turn, prop up the price.
You are proposing a doomsday interpretation of what might happen if everybody but the CEO and his broker was a screaming moron, and conflating the issues surrounding regulating transparency with the issues surrounding insider trading. If insiders were legally required to disclose a reason for sales, and faced actual consequences for making false statements, the room that an insider would have to manipulate the market would be very small(because the market would not take several days to integrate the information, most trading would be done in full knowledge of the information, rather than under whatever false picture).
And there is a cost to limiting insider transactions, it prevents a CEO who absolutely knows that his company is worth X dollars a share from taking advantage of a dip in the market, an action that would *always* improve that market situation for that stock. So the regulation isn't purely beneficial and at least needs to stand up to some cost-benefit analysis(given the outsize risks most small investors tend to take, it is probably a net benefit to have rules that slow down insiders).
They have a great quality control mechanism though, they taste each batch before they decide which bottles/cans to put it in, and we get Milwaukee's Best and Busch out of the bargain. At least, that's the only explanation I can come up with for Milwaukee's Best and Busch.
A lot of the 'this' wonkiness comes from implementation mistakes, and it is getting fixed(which, in the context of javascript being hard to replace in the browser space, is a good thing).
That's a stupid analogy. Anyway, the casino doesn't know what the cards are, they know what the odds and payouts are that day, so if you know the floor boss often plays on good days, you can decide to play based on whether he is playing or not.
Also, virus writers should make sure that any email with their payload contains some nice text explaining that it has been scanned and is free of viruses.
Users aren't generally going to go through the process of authenticating a message in a rigorous manner. Text in the message body is worthless.
A Free Software implementation that is better for users than either Flash or Silverlight. Since they are already free for users, cost isn't a huge factor, and since(judging based on current behavior) users seem a lot more concerned about the value they perceive some software to provide than they care about "Freedom", the easiest(perhaps only) way to win is to be better.
Ruby isn't an extension of Java. One implementation of Ruby runs on the JVM, but there are several other implementations of Ruby. It provides a nice contrast to Java. Perl and Python are much like Ruby(Perl is Perl, Python tends to help the reader more than the writer, Ruby tends to help the writer more than the reader).
Postscript is more obscure than it is proprietary(e.g. Ghostscript implements it, but it isn't a very common choice for general programming tasks).
Lisp/Prolog/Haskell/etc. are more valuable for the things they teach you than for marketability, but knowing stuff is a good way to make big bucks.
Erlang is only going to stay interesting to the extent that other languages fail to come up with/bolt on similar concurrency features(its current implementation targets a fairly narrow niche and it can be awkward in other uses).
D isn't really all that different from C/C++, and isn't going to be a huge boost to your marketability, learn it if you like it and want to use it for something.
Actually, I misreported the basis for the numbers(I hope you will believe it was unintentional, because it was unintentional). The basis for those numbers is household income, not wages.
Besides, it still stands that less than half of the people in this country are paying more than 80% of the taxes, and it is the rich doing it, not the poor. And I'll repeat myself: I'm not trying to argue about the fairness of the current structure, I'm pointing out that the vast majority of federal tax revenue is coming from people that it is very difficult to label as lower income. So I understand that someone could argue that the current structure is overly burdensome on lower income brackets(I don't happen to think so), but it isn't sensible to argue that lower income earners are paying most of the taxes, because they aren't.
The average television viewing person isn't watching the news.
Zing!
Just imagine, in another 5 years, low end won't just be scary anymore, it will be so scary it will make you soil your pants and lose all your hair.
It's more than that, it is also elitist, they are only paying university students.
Of course, since a big goal of the programs is to engage university students, complaining about the fact that the program engages university students is pretty much insane. Next, you should take on those bastards at your local grade schools, I bet they wouldn't welcome your dad into their classes as a student.
So if Diesel Dave had assigned copyright to the FSF, and then these fellas had taken that code and forked it, and then the case happened, he would be better off how?
I don't even see how it would make users of the code better off, or the code-itself 'better off'
(quotes because the code isn't quite an entity).
All you are doing is making a tiresome distinction between nominal and actual costs of going to court. Each of the issues you bring up can be described in terms of dollars(or at least estimated in a hand wavy fashion), and then as a cost of going to court.
Umm, I'm not talking about rates, I'm talking about where the tax dollars are coming from, and more than 65% of all federal tax dollars are coming from people with income greater than $230,000, and a little more than 84% of federal tax dollars are coming from people with income greater than $85,000.
Not discussing the fairness, or what proportion would be appropriate, pointing out the current breakdown and how it is a little hard to argue that the poor are bearing the 'burden'. You can argue that they should have even lower tax rates, but you can't argue that they are paying most of the taxes(because 60% of the population is paying 15% of the taxes).
People are having kids late for lots of reasons, but dishwashers are at least as good an explanation as financial security:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182089/
The gist of it is that the benefits of a couple splitting breadwinning and domestic roles decrease when the domestic role gets easier, so some people tend to put off entering into a relationship that they are not certain of.
I'm 10 years out of high school, and dozens of the people I graduated with have children, out of several hundred, so not everybody is waiting.
In the U.S., the top 20% of wage earners(roughly people making in excess of $230,000) pay about 68% of federal taxes:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml#1011535
The top 40% of wage earners(people making more than $85,000) pay nearly 85% of federal taxes.
They pay a smaller share of medicare/medicaid and social security, because of the income caps, but they still pay the maximum rates for those programs(and a person earning $100,000 is paying more than 2 people earning $40,000 each)
I guess you could argue that the wealthy should be paying even more, but it's a tough sell claiming that lower incomes are bearing most of the burden.
Did you think about what 'ISP' stands for before you wrote that?
The laptop sitting in front of me has a Vista capable sticker on it. I was never really under the impression that it would be a good fit. It was a stupid marketing program, but the information that it wouldn't be the 'full' Vista experience was out there, I knew it, and I was barely paying attention.
There aren't any spaced based weapons because they are only marginally better than ballistic missiles(which can reach anywhere, just not quite as quickly as something already in orbit) and would cost much more for each unit of capability. Submarines offer some of the time advantage and are much stealthier than a satellite.
Also, military planners aren't insane, so they take into account how much safer it is to ship highly radioactive material around on the ground and stick it in holes than it is to shoot it into space.
I'd be surprised if less than 1/2 of the existing capability was online at a given moment.
Evolution doesn't happen along cleanly defined lines; lots of people are trotting out cancer as an easy problem to relate to regeneration, but it doesn't need to be anywhere near that complex. It could be as simple as the developments leading to warm blooded metabolism accidentally turning off regeneration, so as those organisms took over niches where being exothermic was a big advantage, regeneration disappeared.
So the breakage of the regeneration mechanism could be completely incidental, even if was advantageous, if some species with broken regeneration evolved some other mechanism that conferred a larger advantage.
Unfortunately(I guess), that's their goal. If you don't want to look at advertising, they aren't worried about getting you to look at content.
I say "I guess" because somebody has to pay for something somewhere, and the way they do advertising in search, I wouldn't pay very much to get rid of it. For video of any length, they are competing against free(p2p) and $3 DVD rentals, so they can really only screw it up the experience so much before people walk away. For short videos, the ads better not exceed a small fraction of the length of the video.
Would they be integers? (I really have no idea)
My point was more that if it was of reasonable practical value to count circumference-diameter ratios of things rather than units of things, there would probably be a coherent way of doing it laid out. Since it isn't useful(well, except in relation to counting things as units, hence pi), and counting things is useful, well, there we are.
He knows you aren't wearing any pants.
1/pi, 2/pi, pi, pi+1/pi, pi+2/pi. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to use a system that can only express a single unit as pi/pi, but I'm pretty sure you could come up with a coherent system. (and if pi were often needed beyond 5 or 10 base 10 digits, somebody would probably work it out)
For anyone following along, I was only able to find lies. Here is a nice table showing inflation adjusted per-capita GDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#Statistics
(Click 'Show' off to the right of "United States Annual Economic Data")
It does this nice thing where it pretty much only ever increases.
It's important to remember that even though unemployment has drifted over a fairly tight range(say 4%-8%, most of the time), that due to population growth, there have been something like 45 million new jobs created in the last 50 years.
Sure, gone are the days where you graduate high school and go get a job at the plant, but the US isn't in the midst of some horrible economic decline and inevitable stagnation.