No. The value of a company is the amount that it would cost you to buy up all the shares. That's it. The debt and cash on hand are already built into that price.
You are correct that paying off the debt doesn't really affect value, though.
1/3 is not an irrational number. Irrational numbers are numbers that cannot be expressed as fractions. Whether written as decimals or in some other base, they are infinitely long and do not repeat.
It is true that 1/3 is expressed much more simply in base 3 than base 10, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Of course, these are interesting numbers. I wouldn't say that all irrational numbers are "special," because there are an infinite number of them. However, in my view, numbers like pi and e are still fascinating. Why are their values what they are? Could they have been something else? Is there any significance to them?
Whatever, dude. I think you epitomize racism. I don't say that to insult you (really, I don't). I just think we should rise above race; it IS the 21st century and all...
Is it possible to be racist against your own race? Is it possible to discriminate against your own "people"? I don't really think so. Not with elections. I vote for minority candidates often because the balance of power is extremely biased toward white American males. And I am one!
Yes, I think what you do is wrong. We should judge people on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. If you don't agree, then I think you are a racist.
I'm so tired of being presented with the "choice" between "Rich White Man A" and "Rich White Man B" at each level of the process. In the 2000 primaries, both parties #1 and #2 were "Rich White Man" and here we are in 2004, and the Democrats are presenting a many-headed "Rich White Man" field of "choices". Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt.
Screw them all. I'd vote for freakin' SHARPTON if he makes it to a ballot near me, and I think he's INSANE.
In most parts of the world, voting for or against someone because of the color of his (or her) skin is racist. You disgust me.
And I'm pretty sure that there's no moral equivalence between the United States and Syria. The US may not do the right thing all of the time, but Syria does the wrong thing nearly 100% of the time. I should hope that Syria would not be allowed to do this kind of thing for any reason. I'm not as squeamish about the US (or Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.) doing it.
Do you honestly think MS is threatened by Apple? I mean, really? When was the last time you saw medium-to-large businesses considering the switch? On the desktop? How about in the server room? Now, for home users, you may have a valid point, but not for businesses.
Let's call it a two-pronged assault: Linux in the server room and Mac OS X on the home PC is going to make management less likely to believe the MS FUD. Unix won't be so scary to them. And if they start to realize that the computers they use at work suck a whole lot more than the iMac their kids use at home, the wheels will start turning. And when their work computers get infested with the latest virus and their kids say, "Don't worry, Dad, we don't need Norton Anti-Virus because we have a Mac," the wheels will turn some more.
Now, whether or not this happens is a matter of speculation. Maybe Apple will move to 15% desktop marketshare and Linux will get 75% on the server. Who knows? But MS doesn't want to see any marketshare erosion and they're going to fight it tooth and nail, which is why they've geared up for this big effort.
It may or may not reduce one's standard of living depending on at least two things:
1. How much individuals value a cleaner environment.
2. How much individuals value a lower (and flatter) overall tax burden (this only applies if you modify the tax system according to my original post).
So while there are costs associated with the artificially increased price of energy, it is hoped that the benefit of either 1 or 2 or 1+2 will outweigh the costs. If this is not the case, then we ought not to advocate this sort of plan.
Surely the problem with all these wonderful schemes is that they involve a reduction in our standard of living, at least in the short and medium term, if only due to increased taxation, and there is little evidence that this is a vote-winning idea. Sure, we can blame the politicians, but if the electorate was begging for higher taxes on fuel, I suspect they would be happy to deliver.
I think the article is advocating a tax shift, not a tax increase. In other words, they argue that we ought to lower the income tax and increase the tax on gasoline. If you combined the tax shift with an overall reduction in taxes paid by the average person, I think you could find a great deal of support for such a plan. The leftists would like it because it is more environmentally sound, and conservatives would like it because their overall tax rates would be lower. Seems fair, no?
Very well expressed. However, I think there is (and I think the Court will recognize) a distinction between theism and established religion. It's not like anyone is saying that you have to be a Quaker or a Puritan or a Catholic, etc. to vote. And in the end, as you point out, the Pledge is strictly voluntary (nothing prevents someone from saying everything in the Pledge except "under God" either). In addition, even if the Court says that theism in general is not a religion, and that the Pledge doesn't violate the Constitution, that won't prohibit individual states from doing away with the Pledge or with the offending parts.
I would go with Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird. They are free, full of handy features, smaller than the full Mozilla, in active development, and available for both Windows and Linux.
1. Steve Jobs 26. Rod Aldridge 2. Bill Gates 27. Stelios Haji-Ioannou 3. Greg Dyke 28. Ian Foster 4. Hu Jintao 29. Dmitri Sklyarov 5. Linus Torvalds 30. David Blunkett 6. Roger Cole 31. Erich Gamma 7. Sam Palmisano 32. Jeff Bezos 8. Atal Behari Vajpayee 33. Donna Dubinsky 9. Peter Gershon 34. Donald E Knuth 10. Carly Fiorina 35. Masayoshi Son 11. Rupert Murdoch 36. Michael Gough 12. Michael Dell 37. Keiji Tachikawa 13. Arun Sarin 38. Marc Benioff 14. Richard Granger 39. Sir John Sulston 15. Fred von Lohmann 40. Larry Ellison 16. Eric Schmidt 41. Stephen Hill 17. David Levin 42. SoBig author 18. Stephen Carter 43. Naomi Klein 19. Steve Linford 44. Henning Kagermann 20. Christian Ude 45. Mario Monti 21. Greg Aharonian 46. Ulrich Schumacher 22. Scott McNealy 47. Tim Berners-Lee 23. Terry Semel 48. Steve Ballmer 24. Sergey Brin 49. John Malone 25. Ben Verwaayen 50. Michael Moritz
The Patriot Act is something over which a lot of people get worked into a frenzy, I know, but 1984 this is not. There are lots of good canned lines the ACLU and others are using to fire up their supporters, but catchiness doesn't make them true. Policy disagreements over issues like this need to be addressed with reason and respect, not insults and emotion.
One of the best articles in defense of the Patriot Act appeared in Commentary and the Wall Street Journal and was written by Robert Bork, a very conservative former judge, Reagan Supreme Court nominee, and legal scholar. I think he makes some points about which a lot of the rabid anti-Patriot Act people are unaware.
I happen to think the Patriot Act is appropriate. If you don't, that's cool. I can handle disagreement, and I urge you to vote your conscience in 2004. But let's keep the debate constructive.
The USS Jimmy Carter wouldn't even have weapons on it. It would be used to distribute leaflets with handy fuel-saving tips. Amy Carter would be constantly on hand to give advice to the Admiral.
The "good guys" generally don't have the money to take on the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are "bad" because they have money - LOTS of money.
The implication that wealth connotes evil is simply childish. It's envy disguised as principle. Just because somebody has something you don't (toys, money, power, a hot girlfriend or boyfriend) does not make them a "bad guy."
Until the "good guys" have the financial wherewithal to take on the "bad guys", corrupt governments will be more easily influenced by the corporations - The exact groups that should have precisely zero say in anything to do with how a country is run.
Corporations are legal entities usually made up of several (often millions) of individuals. An astonishing number of Americans own stock in these corporations (including me and probably most of your elderly relatives). It seems silly to abolish the right of these people to petition government through this medium simply because you don't like them.
There are lots of great reasons to support the Public Domain Act. None of them is "Because the MPAA and RIAA are rich."
So why not redefine one second to equal 1/86400 the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis? Or alternatively, change the number of oscilations of Cesium 133? It seems like a much more elegant solution than these crazy leap seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Voice Search
No. The value of a company is the amount that it would cost you to buy up all the shares. That's it. The debt and cash on hand are already built into that price.
You are correct that paying off the debt doesn't really affect value, though.
Well, we're a bit over 6 billion now. It's more like 6,348,951,839. Wait. Now it's 6,348,951,840. And now 6,348,951,841...
1/3 is not an irrational number. Irrational numbers are numbers that cannot be expressed as fractions. Whether written as decimals or in some other base, they are infinitely long and do not repeat.
It is true that 1/3 is expressed much more simply in base 3 than base 10, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Of course, these are interesting numbers. I wouldn't say that all irrational numbers are "special," because there are an infinite number of them. However, in my view, numbers like pi and e are still fascinating. Why are their values what they are? Could they have been something else? Is there any significance to them?
Whatever, dude. I think you epitomize racism. I don't say that to insult you (really, I don't). I just think we should rise above race; it IS the 21st century and all...
I'm not voting against Dean and the "clones" because they are white, and I'm definitely not voting for Sharpton because he is black.
I'm voting against Dean and the "clones" because they are rich, spoiled, career politicians.
Sharpton may not have held elected office before, but he is still rich, spoiled, and a career media whore.
(By the way, Edwards is in his first term in office, so I don't think he qualifies as a career politician. Not that I support him or anything.)
Is it possible to be racist against your own race?
Is it possible to discriminate against your own "people"?
I don't really think so. Not with elections. I vote for minority candidates often because the balance of power is extremely biased toward white American males.
And I am one!
Yes, I think what you do is wrong. We should judge people on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. If you don't agree, then I think you are a racist.
I'm so tired of being presented with the "choice" between "Rich White Man A" and "Rich White Man B" at each level of the process. In the 2000 primaries, both parties #1 and #2 were "Rich White Man" and here we are in 2004, and the Democrats are presenting a many-headed "Rich White Man" field of "choices". Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt.
Screw them all. I'd vote for freakin' SHARPTON if he makes it to a ballot near me, and I think he's INSANE.
In most parts of the world, voting for or against someone because of the color of his (or her) skin is racist. You disgust me.
...to Panther. Jaguars have spots.
And I'm pretty sure that there's no moral equivalence between the United States and Syria. The US may not do the right thing all of the time, but Syria does the wrong thing nearly 100% of the time. I should hope that Syria would not be allowed to do this kind of thing for any reason. I'm not as squeamish about the US (or Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.) doing it.
Do you honestly think MS is threatened by Apple? I mean, really? When was the last time you saw medium-to-large businesses considering the switch? On the desktop? How about in the server room? Now, for home users, you may have a valid point, but not for businesses.
Let's call it a two-pronged assault: Linux in the server room and Mac OS X on the home PC is going to make management less likely to believe the MS FUD. Unix won't be so scary to them. And if they start to realize that the computers they use at work suck a whole lot more than the iMac their kids use at home, the wheels will start turning. And when their work computers get infested with the latest virus and their kids say, "Don't worry, Dad, we don't need Norton Anti-Virus because we have a Mac," the wheels will turn some more.
Now, whether or not this happens is a matter of speculation. Maybe Apple will move to 15% desktop marketshare and Linux will get 75% on the server. Who knows? But MS doesn't want to see any marketshare erosion and they're going to fight it tooth and nail, which is why they've geared up for this big effort.
It may or may not reduce one's standard of living depending on at least two things:
1. How much individuals value a cleaner environment.
2. How much individuals value a lower (and flatter) overall tax burden (this only applies if you modify the tax system according to my original post).
So while there are costs associated with the artificially increased price of energy, it is hoped that the benefit of either 1 or 2 or 1+2 will outweigh the costs. If this is not the case, then we ought not to advocate this sort of plan.
Surely the problem with all these wonderful schemes is that they involve a reduction in our standard of living, at least in the short and medium term, if only due to increased taxation, and there is little evidence that this is a vote-winning idea. Sure, we can blame the politicians, but if the electorate was begging for higher taxes on fuel, I suspect they would be happy to deliver.
I think the article is advocating a tax shift, not a tax increase. In other words, they argue that we ought to lower the income tax and increase the tax on gasoline. If you combined the tax shift with an overall reduction in taxes paid by the average person, I think you could find a great deal of support for such a plan. The leftists would like it because it is more environmentally sound, and conservatives would like it because their overall tax rates would be lower. Seems fair, no?
Very well expressed. However, I think there is (and I think the Court will recognize) a distinction between theism and established religion. It's not like anyone is saying that you have to be a Quaker or a Puritan or a Catholic, etc. to vote. And in the end, as you point out, the Pledge is strictly voluntary (nothing prevents someone from saying everything in the Pledge except "under God" either). In addition, even if the Court says that theism in general is not a religion, and that the Pledge doesn't violate the Constitution, that won't prohibit individual states from doing away with the Pledge or with the offending parts.
It looks like Queer Eye visited the US Treasury.
I would go with Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird. They are free, full of handy features, smaller than the full Mozilla, in active development, and available for both Windows and Linux.
1. Steve Jobs 26. Rod Aldridge
2. Bill Gates 27. Stelios Haji-Ioannou
3. Greg Dyke 28. Ian Foster
4. Hu Jintao 29. Dmitri Sklyarov
5. Linus Torvalds 30. David Blunkett
6. Roger Cole 31. Erich Gamma
7. Sam Palmisano 32. Jeff Bezos
8. Atal Behari Vajpayee 33. Donna Dubinsky
9. Peter Gershon 34. Donald E Knuth
10. Carly Fiorina 35. Masayoshi Son
11. Rupert Murdoch 36. Michael Gough
12. Michael Dell 37. Keiji Tachikawa
13. Arun Sarin 38. Marc Benioff
14. Richard Granger 39. Sir John Sulston
15. Fred von Lohmann 40. Larry Ellison
16. Eric Schmidt 41. Stephen Hill
17. David Levin 42. SoBig author
18. Stephen Carter 43. Naomi Klein
19. Steve Linford 44. Henning Kagermann
20. Christian Ude 45. Mario Monti
21. Greg Aharonian 46. Ulrich Schumacher
22. Scott McNealy 47. Tim Berners-Lee
23. Terry Semel 48. Steve Ballmer
24. Sergey Brin 49. John Malone
25. Ben Verwaayen 50. Michael Moritz
And in the battle of public opinion, you can't beat the 500 pound elephant willing to lie.
That's one small elephant!
The Patriot Act is something over which a lot of people get worked into a frenzy, I know, but 1984 this is not. There are lots of good canned lines the ACLU and others are using to fire up their supporters, but catchiness doesn't make them true. Policy disagreements over issues like this need to be addressed with reason and respect, not insults and emotion.
One of the best articles in defense of the Patriot Act appeared in Commentary and the Wall Street Journal and was written by Robert Bork, a very conservative former judge, Reagan Supreme Court nominee, and legal scholar. I think he makes some points about which a lot of the rabid anti-Patriot Act people are unaware.
I happen to think the Patriot Act is appropriate. If you don't, that's cool. I can handle disagreement, and I urge you to vote your conscience in 2004. But let's keep the debate constructive.
The USS Jimmy Carter wouldn't even have weapons on it. It would be used to distribute leaflets with handy fuel-saving tips. Amy Carter would be constantly on hand to give advice to the Admiral.
Where to begin?
The "good guys" generally don't have the money to take on the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are "bad" because they have money - LOTS of money.
The implication that wealth connotes evil is simply childish. It's envy disguised as principle. Just because somebody has something you don't (toys, money, power, a hot girlfriend or boyfriend) does not make them a "bad guy."
Until the "good guys" have the financial wherewithal to take on the "bad guys", corrupt governments will be more easily influenced by the corporations - The exact groups that should have precisely zero say in anything to do with how a country is run.
Corporations are legal entities usually made up of several (often millions) of individuals. An astonishing number of Americans own stock in these corporations (including me and probably most of your elderly relatives). It seems silly to abolish the right of these people to petition government through this medium simply because you don't like them.
There are lots of great reasons to support the Public Domain Act. None of them is "Because the MPAA and RIAA are rich."
Grow up.
G3, G4, and G5 are Apple names, not Motorola names. Apple will probably call the 970 a G5.
So why not redefine one second to equal 1/86400 the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis? Or alternatively, change the number of oscilations of Cesium 133? It seems like a much more elegant solution than these crazy leap seconds.
they use a "." instead of a "," to delimit their thousands. It's not a mistake.
What? No Europeans arguing that a period is BETTER than the American comma? You guys have really eased up lately.
On August 20, both Firebird and Thunderbird will probably be renamed "Mozilla".