I can remember when a previous employer opened an office in NYC. Suddenly all sales personnel became VPs. The rational being that they couldn't get a call returned if they didn't have a title.
If you were smart, you would ask Ford to sign a contract guaranteeing the quality of the tires.
And if Ford were half as smart as I, they would refuse. And since they had signed a pact with GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. they wouldn't worry about any other manufacturer offering said contract.
You should have bought insurance which guarantees coverage for medical bills. (And that contract would be enforced by law.)
What "enlightened" insurance company would offer such a stupid policy at an affordable price?
Because you can't work as well as you used to, and you are now an unprofitable asset for the corporation. Maybe you should ask a charity for some money? There are still decent people in the world, you know.
Why don't you re-read the message you're responding to. Put yourself in that situation. Or any other catastrophic scenario. SHIT HAPPENS. ALL THE TIME. To people just like YOU. Do you want to have to rely on "the kindness of strangers?"
All that's required is a little bit of thought on your part. Is that too much to ask?
All that's required is a reality check on your part. Get a clue. Read the paper. Watch the news. See those people dying in the middle-east, Indonesia, Bosnia, Africa (pick your favorite "enlightened" government)
People are motivated by a rational self-interest. "What is best for me, and for those I care about?" The answer to that question, "what is best," is rarely government.
As you lay on the side of road, your spine shattered, I hope you have time to contemplate, with your enlighted self-interest, how this could possibly have happened to you.
Why Ford would
sell you a vehicle with defective tires? Why on earth Bridgestone would
manufacture defective tires? Why your insurance company would
refuse to cover your medical bills for the the next sixty years? Why your employer would
decide to LAY YOU OFF (possiblly due to your inability to hold your own dick--what little may be left of it--let alone walk to the restroom to use it).
If you're still breathing after all this, and some bleeding heart liberal has stopped to scrape you up off the pavement (why would a "rational" person waste his time on a piece of almost-roadkill), maybe you'll find time to revist the topic of what goverment is best at.
What do I get for that missing 20%? Believe me, we're not even talking about SocSick and Mediscam here. I'm taking care of my own retirement and health insurance. You think I'll trust my life, health, and general welfare to some 'crats in DC? No thank you.
Did you bother to read the article?
Pardon my cynicism, but it appears appealing to your social conscious is unlikely to work.
Are you familiar with the phrase "bread and circus?" Think History of Western Civilization: Ancient Rome.
Keep the masses happy.
It may be possible to keep ignorant, unaware people down for an extended peroid of time. Unfortunately, television has raised the bar. If society and it's physical manifestation, government, don't respond to the needs of the population (health care, food, shelter), the population will rise up. I don't think you'll like the results. Some that come to mind: China, Vietnam, Czarist Russia, Cuba, Iran...
Think of that 20% as insurance. It might make it a bit easier to swallow.
Not hardly. How old are you? Here's a link to the Lamborghini registry. Check out the "mystery car" link on the right side. Or, try findit.
The Espada, Jarama, Urraco had rear seats. If you wanted a 120mhp v12 SUV, there was the
LM002 (popular with the Saudi royal family).
Everyone over 44 and under 17, or non-able-bodied, or of the female persuasion (unless in the national guard) should immediately turn in their weapons.
Bridging the gap between invalid (handicapped) and invalid (not valid...genetically). Don't worry about the US, we know a good idea when we see one. --
Damn straight. The world was a better place when government was chasing faggots and abortionists. When the only beaver on TV was named Cleaver. When righteous companies like Exxon were keeping our motors running. Any moron could tell you that guns don't kill people, bullets do.
I believe (and IANAB) that most "know-your-client-rules" in the US date back to the days when people didn't buy stock. Brokers bought and sold stock for their clients. Often with out consulting the clients. You gave your money to a broker who "knew" you and your goals and he made investments that he felt (or, perhaps his firm was pushing) were best suited to those goals. "Advice" was part of the package (and the reason you paid $289 to buy a hundred shares of GE).
The rules came about as a cover-your-ass measure. Five or six innane multiple choice questions on the account application form that the legal department could point to when you took the firm to court for churning, etc.
Those days are gone for most investors. I'd wager the current crop of day-trader-wannabees have never held a full service brokerage account. The idea strikes them as absurd. Is that good or bad? Time will tell.
In the bad old days, IPOs were a carrot that brokers held out to their "favored" clients. E*trade is just following in the footsteps of the good-old-boy network. Unfortunately, they didn't have the smarts to finesse this particular issue.
A company goes to a broker looking to raise capital. To get the company's business, the broker guarantees to sell an agreed upon dollar amount of stock. The broker evaluates the marketability of the company and determines an IPO share price. The company files with SEC to sell shares; if it has any brains, it does not give all the shares to the broker, retaining some for secondary offerings. The broker, meanwhile is drumming up support and making adjustments to the IPO price so that it can make its money back, and then some.
The IPO happens. Either it's hugely successful/oversubscribed and the broker makes money; or, it's flat, and the broker breaks even or makes a few pennys on the commissions; or, it's a busted IPO and the broker ends up holding a lot of unmarketable stock. Whatever happens, the company gets its guaranteed capital.
Needless to say, brokers don't get involved in IPOs they think are going to fail. Depending on market conditions, the future relationship it wishes to maintain with the company, etc., the broker may hold on to some shares or sell them all into the market.
If, as an AT&T customer, you make an online purchase and find yourself confronted with an "AT&T access charge" added to your bill along with shipping, are you going to complete the transaction? Or hang-up and call the 800 number (which, I realize is going to cost the merchant money also)?
After the Amazon fiasco of charging customers different prices for the same merchandise depending on their previous spending patterns, I doubt any online merchant could keep a variable pricing scheme based on ISP secret for long.
After a few experiences with an AT&T tax, customers would either switch ISPs, or stop shopping online. The people spending money online are not the same people who still lease their phones from "Ma Bell."
Au contraire... The point of spinning off successful operations isto keep systemic failures of the rest of the business from dragging them down. Looks like it worked out just fine here. Also, the parent corporation is generally left holding a very sizable chunk of stock. Although I don't know the details here, I'm sure this was no exception.
You obviously haven't been paying attention. The stock market race to new 52 week lows is a dead heat between Lose-cent and AT&T. Lucent is spinning off chunks of itself so fast it would make your head swim.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've read yet. It would cost them more to monitor the traffic than they could hope to recoup--unless their goal was driving eCompanies out of business. They're looking at credit card issuers and saying: "they get 1 or 2 percent of every sale, why shouldn't we?" Guess who ends up paying for it. You and me. The merchants either swallow the cost and end up in bankruptcy court, or pass it along to us.
A company called Disappearing, Inc. has a solution to the email problem. It's somewhat convoluted and requires you to be online to their servers to read email sent using their encription. If you're willing to put up with the hassle, they allow you to send an email which becomes unreadable after a time period you specify. Basically, they encript it and store the key on their server (just the key, not the message). After the set time period, the key is deleted and the message is unreadable (without serious cracking). The recipient must be online to read the message (has to be able to access the key) but doesn't need to install software.
I don't work for Disappearing (I think I found them through/. or Ars Technica). They are a private company and, depending on your level of paranoia, may be up to no good. Their business model seems to be aimed at selling the server software to businesses; providing the free net-based service as a come-on.
I'm merely trying to be helpful, and such hostility!?
Here's another tip: Don't quit your day job. We can only hope you're a better programmer than writer.
Here's a little problem for you to solve: What are the odds that two people would decide to join Slashdot at the same time (as evidenced by their user numbers: pcparadis #238006 and yzxbmlf #238008); decide to read the same article and comment on it as their first posts to this forum. Not only do they both comment on said article, mr. yzxbmlf (#238008) decides to applaud mr. pcparadis (#238006). Coincidence? We think not.
Perhaps in future writing classes mr. pcparadis will learn to vary the color of mr. yzxbmlf's comments so as to better cloak their origin.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why local control is almost always better than state control.
Right. As in the religious right. As in favoring the teaching of creationism over evolution in Kansas public schools (since struck down). No thanks.
You did say "almost," so I won't ask how old you are.
I'm always amazed at how quickly people forget that everyone, not just the federal or state government, has an agenda. And no one lives in a vacuum.
--
...and they gett away with by using envelopes. There should be higher penalties for criminals who use envelopes.
Envelopes? Not a problem with Envelope X-ray Spray.
--
I'm not too surprised, with the 20 or so distributions of LINUX kicking around.
Twenty? Where have you been? Home taking a nap?
Number of Linux Distributions Surpasses Number of Users
--
I can remember when a previous employer opened an office in NYC. Suddenly all sales personnel became VPs. The rational being that they couldn't get a call returned if they didn't have a title.
--
Because it's profitable.
Thank you for pin-pointing the obvious.
If you were smart, you would ask Ford to sign a contract guaranteeing the quality of the tires.
And if Ford were half as smart as I, they would refuse. And since they had signed a pact with GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. they wouldn't worry about any other manufacturer offering said contract.
You should have bought insurance which guarantees coverage for medical bills. (And that contract would be enforced by law.)
What "enlightened" insurance company would offer such a stupid policy at an affordable price?
Because you can't work as well as you used to, and you are now an unprofitable asset for the corporation. Maybe you should ask a charity for some money? There are still decent people in the world, you know.
Why don't you re-read the message you're responding to. Put yourself in that situation. Or any other catastrophic scenario. SHIT HAPPENS. ALL THE TIME. To people just like YOU. Do you want to have to rely on "the kindness of strangers?"
All that's required is a little bit of thought on your part. Is that too much to ask?
All that's required is a reality check on your part. Get a clue. Read the paper. Watch the news. See those people dying in the middle-east, Indonesia, Bosnia, Africa (pick your favorite "enlightened" government)
--
People are motivated by a rational self-interest. "What is best for me, and for those I care about?" The answer to that question, "what is best," is rarely government.
As you lay on the side of road, your spine shattered, I hope you have time to contemplate, with your enlighted self-interest, how this could possibly have happened to you.
Why Ford would sell you a vehicle with defective tires? Why on earth Bridgestone would manufacture defective tires? Why your insurance company would refuse to cover your medical bills for the the next sixty years? Why your employer would decide to LAY YOU OFF (possiblly due to your inability to hold your own dick--what little may be left of it--let alone walk to the restroom to use it).
If you're still breathing after all this, and some bleeding heart liberal has stopped to scrape you up off the pavement (why would a "rational" person waste his time on a piece of almost-roadkill), maybe you'll find time to revist the topic of what goverment is best at.
--
What do I get for that missing 20%? Believe me, we're not even talking about SocSick and Mediscam here. I'm taking care of my own retirement and health insurance. You think I'll trust my life, health, and general welfare to some 'crats in DC? No thank you.
Did you bother to read the article?
Pardon my cynicism, but it appears appealing to your social conscious is unlikely to work.
Are you familiar with the phrase "bread and circus?" Think History of Western Civilization: Ancient Rome.
Keep the masses happy.
It may be possible to keep ignorant, unaware people down for an extended peroid of time. Unfortunately, television has raised the bar. If society and it's physical manifestation, government, don't respond to the needs of the population (health care, food, shelter), the population will rise up. I don't think you'll like the results. Some that come to mind: China, Vietnam, Czarist Russia, Cuba, Iran...
Think of that 20% as insurance. It might make it a bit easier to swallow.
--
A first year economy student cann tell you the only industries which CREATE value are farming and mining.
And Nobel prize winning economists (Robert C. Merton and Myron S. Scholes) can tell you which financial instruments can cost you millions.
At least now they can.
--
a Lamborghini with a backseat?! are you mad!!!
Not hardly. How old are you? Here's a link to the Lamborghini registry. Check out the "mystery car" link on the right side. Or, try findit. The Espada, Jarama, Urraco had rear seats. If you wanted a 120mhp v12 SUV, there was the LM002 (popular with the Saudi royal family).
--
argh...mod not mode
Can you spell potatoe?
(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)
They should say something about spelling.
--
Mode this up!
Here's a couple of links to Red Herring. The first one is a Bush interview. The second one is Gore.
If intellect counted for anything, this would be a no-brainer. But, then again, this is the USA we're talking about.
--
So...
Everyone over 44 and under 17, or non-able-bodied, or of the female persuasion (unless in the national guard) should immediately turn in their weapons.
Or am I missing something here?
--
Bridging the gap between invalid (handicapped) and invalid (not valid...genetically). Don't worry about the US, we know a good idea when we see one.
--
Damn straight. The world was a better place when government was chasing faggots and abortionists. When the only beaver on TV was named Cleaver. When righteous companies like Exxon were keeping our motors running. Any moron could tell you that guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Idiot.
--
I believe (and IANAB) that most "know-your-client-rules" in the US date back to the days when people didn't buy stock. Brokers bought and sold stock for their clients. Often with out consulting the clients. You gave your money to a broker who "knew" you and your goals and he made investments that he felt (or, perhaps his firm was pushing) were best suited to those goals. "Advice" was part of the package (and the reason you paid $289 to buy a hundred shares of GE).
The rules came about as a cover-your-ass measure. Five or six innane multiple choice questions on the account application form that the legal department could point to when you took the firm to court for churning, etc.
Those days are gone for most investors. I'd wager the current crop of day-trader-wannabees have never held a full service brokerage account. The idea strikes them as absurd. Is that good or bad? Time will tell.
In the bad old days, IPOs were a carrot that brokers held out to their "favored" clients. E*trade is just following in the footsteps of the good-old-boy network. Unfortunately, they didn't have the smarts to finesse this particular issue.
--
Hello? The brokers own the market.
A company goes to a broker looking to raise capital. To get the company's business, the broker guarantees to sell an agreed upon dollar amount of stock. The broker evaluates the marketability of the company and determines an IPO share price. The company files with SEC to sell shares; if it has any brains, it does not give all the shares to the broker, retaining some for secondary offerings. The broker, meanwhile is drumming up support and making adjustments to the IPO price so that it can make its money back, and then some.
The IPO happens. Either it's hugely successful/oversubscribed and the broker makes money; or, it's flat, and the broker breaks even or makes a few pennys on the commissions; or, it's a busted IPO and the broker ends up holding a lot of unmarketable stock. Whatever happens, the company gets its guaranteed capital.
Needless to say, brokers don't get involved in IPOs they think are going to fail. Depending on market conditions, the future relationship it wishes to maintain with the company, etc., the broker may hold on to some shares or sell them all into the market.
--
If, as an AT&T customer, you make an online purchase and find yourself confronted with an "AT&T access charge" added to your bill along with shipping, are you going to complete the transaction? Or hang-up and call the 800 number (which, I realize is going to cost the merchant money also)?
After the Amazon fiasco of charging customers different prices for the same merchandise depending on their previous spending patterns, I doubt any online merchant could keep a variable pricing scheme based on ISP secret for long.
After a few experiences with an AT&T tax, customers would either switch ISPs, or stop shopping online. The people spending money online are not the same people who still lease their phones from "Ma Bell."
--
Au contraire... The point of spinning off successful operations isto keep systemic failures of the rest of the business from dragging them down. Looks like it worked out just fine here. Also, the parent corporation is generally left holding a very sizable chunk of stock. Although I don't know the details here, I'm sure this was no exception.
You obviously haven't been paying attention. The stock market race to new 52 week lows is a dead heat between Lose-cent and AT&T. Lucent is spinning off chunks of itself so fast it would make your head swim.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've read yet. It would cost them more to monitor the traffic than they could hope to recoup--unless their goal was driving eCompanies out of business. They're looking at credit card issuers and saying: "they get 1 or 2 percent of every sale, why shouldn't we?" Guess who ends up paying for it. You and me. The merchants either swallow the cost and end up in bankruptcy court, or pass it along to us.
--
A company called Disappearing, Inc. has a solution to the email problem. It's somewhat convoluted and requires you to be online to their servers to read email sent using their encription. If you're willing to put up with the hassle, they allow you to send an email which becomes unreadable after a time period you specify. Basically, they encript it and store the key on their server (just the key, not the message). After the set time period, the key is deleted and the message is unreadable (without serious cracking). The recipient must be online to read the message (has to be able to access the key) but doesn't need to install software.
/. or Ars Technica). They are a private company and, depending on your level of paranoia, may be up to no good. Their business model seems to be aimed at selling the server software to businesses; providing the free net-based service as a come-on.
I don't work for Disappearing (I think I found them through
--
I'm merely trying to be helpful, and such hostility!?
Here's another tip: Don't quit your day job. We can only hope you're a better programmer than writer.
Here's a little problem for you to solve: What are the odds that two people would decide to join Slashdot at the same time (as evidenced by their user numbers: pcparadis #238006 and yzxbmlf #238008); decide to read the same article and comment on it as their first posts to this forum. Not only do they both comment on said article, mr. yzxbmlf (#238008) decides to applaud mr. pcparadis (#238006). Coincidence? We think not.
Perhaps in future writing classes mr. pcparadis will learn to vary the color of mr. yzxbmlf's comments so as to better cloak their origin.
We'll be keeping an eye on you schizo boy.
--