fix the 90 repairable, and take 10 from the next batch to replace those that are scrapped
Eventually, they have to "make good" on the float - but it will be at a lower cost, since their costs are going down each year. If you can "float" 100,000 units over 3 years, and save $100 per unit when you eventually have to replace that float, you've banked $10 million.
Good point... but a lot of banks kept a slice of the new debt for themselves as well, as well as buying stuff that inadvertently contained more toxic debt, which is why they're taking billions in write-downs. It turns out that the average $1,000 of mortgage debt has been sliced, resold, and re-packaged to the point where it represents ove $15,000 of "financial exposure" along the line.
The "unwinding" of this bad debt is going to leave the fed no choice but to try to inflate its way out.
Of course, this means that the next bubble, which everyone is saying will be "alternate energy", will either by even worse, or, for lack of "hard capital" domestically, will fizzle. Either way, all that's happening is putting off the day of reconning. Its very scary.
Management isn't generally a bunch of PHB's who flail around with no idea what they're doing
You need to look around. The Peter Principle is alive and well, and is easy enough to see. Look at all those clueless top management at the Fed, the White House, the banks, etc., - everyone who went against the obvious - that at some point a mortgage is only worth as much as the earning power of the person who is paying it - and brought us yet another crisis.
Why do you think that newer businesses can beat out older established competitors? Part of the reason is that the longer a business has been around, the more positions are filled by people who have been promoted to a position one higher than they are really capable of. So they're not all that competent, and their boss, who refuses to address it, is also incompetent. And his boss, and so on and so on and so on...
Also, this isn't news. The original theory was that the sun would expand right out to the earth's orbit during its "red giant" phase. The idea that the earth might spiral out is relatively new... all this does is confirm the original position.
In other words, in 7 billion years... nothing to see here, move along...
IQ is not a specific fixed number that doesn't change depending on test methods, environment, etc. That's why average is defined as 80 to 120 points.
Just as you have to use the right tools for the job, you also have to use the right terms. Like I said, most people think they're smarter than the average person, and they're not. They're average.
Average intelligence is not a knife-point edge. Average is defined as an IQ of between 80 to 120 (with half at 100), so the majority of people ARE either average or below average, despite the average person self-evaluating as being above-average in intelligence.
It's almost more unreasonable to suggest that, in the middle of an acrimonious divorce with a lying, cheating swindler with a foreign passport, he'd ever have let her pick them up.
He had already lost custody. He was in danger of further sanctions from the bench because of his behaviour. I'm sure his lawyer told him many times not to f*ck around with custody and visitation or he'd end up with his broke ass in a jail cell and get only supervised visits. Thats how it works.
I don't care that he's "different." I would want to know why he picked the kids up at school when it wasn't his turn, and when nobody knew that Nina was missing.
You want me to make up some reasons for you? Here's one: he wanted to spend some more time with them, so he decided to try to kidnap them for a day or so and see if he could get away with it.
He was already facing sanctions from the courts. He was on a VERY short leash. Or are you suggesting an insanity defense?
And you can turn this point around you know... Why would Reiser behave as though he knew Nina was dead? Isn't that a remarkably stupid thing to do?
... hey, even a genius can make a mistake... especially in a field that they're not familiar with, like how to kill someone. His getting the books on criminal investigations afterwards is just as easily the act af a narcissist rubbing your nose into it - "See, why would I get these books unless I wasn't guilty?"
Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the one that makes the most sense - that he's a violent, egotistical SOB who ddn't like that his ex-wife had made a life on her own, and that he owed her $30,000, and that she slept with his friend, and that she got the kids, and that she was moving on with her life while he was $90k in debt, his business failing, and he blamed her and pulled an O.J.
Just answer this one question - why did he, in the middle of an acrimonious divorce that he was about to be judicially sanctioned for his foot-dragging, pick up the kids from school when it was Nina's turn to do so?
A reasonable person would conclude that he knew Nina wouldn't be picking them up.
If she had left the country as he claims, how would he know so quickly, before anyone else, that she wouldn't be picking up the kids?
His picking up the kids shows prior knowledge. Its a mistake. Even geeks make mistakes, sometime very stupid ones.
So, now that we have some reasonable suspicion, lets look at another question - why did he throw the seat in the dumpster?
If he just wanted to get rid of it, he could have left it by the curb for garbage day. Or he could have stashed it at his mothers', and picked it up if / when he needed it again. Instead, he says he drove around to someone else's dumpster, and dumped it there. That only makes sense if you don't want to be connected to the missing seat at some future date. For the same effort, he could have sold it for a few bucks at a scrap yard, with less risk of the dumpster owner calling the cops on him for using their dumpster. "But I'm a geek - I'm weird!" He doesn't add "Only when its convenient, baby..."
When all is said and done, without an explanation for why he picked up the kids, I think a reasonable person would conclude he acted with specific knowledge about Nina.
No, I'm saying that his actions indicate his guilt.
He picked up the kids from school when it was Nina's turn... before anyone could have known she was missing...
No explanation for what appears to be prior knowledge that Nina, for one reason or another, wasn't going to be able to do it.
His actions are what I'm looking at - and that one in particular puts the lie to his claim that Nina is trying to frame him.
If Nina had left the country (as Hans claims) to try to make his disappearance look like murder, how would Hans have known to go and pick up the kids that day, when it wasn't his turn, in the middle of a very acrimonious divorce?
The "geek defense" doesn't explain his actions.
His having killed her does.
Means, motive, opportunity, and actions that betray knowledge of her "disappearance" before it was known by anyone else.
Saying he's a geek, or that he's weird, doesn't explain it. Prior knowledge does.
His actions speak for themselves. From here, they say he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. YMMV, and of course, not being in the courtroom, I obviously haven't heard the evidence the jury has heard, but someone is going to ask that question. Why did he pick up the kids, unless he already knew Nina wasn't going to pick them up?
Without some sort of an answer, I can only go by what his actions say.
So why not just, y'know, by an act of congress, make the government the single-payer for anybody who wants it? We basically did the same thing in the 60's when we brought in medicare, the doctors actually went on strike to try and prevent it, but it's a genuine Good Thing to have.
How many congresscritters are beholden to campaign contributions from HMOs? How many HMOs are going to fund FUD campaigns screaming that "they're taking away your rights?"
I don't expect anything rational out of congress unless you lock them in a room and tell them, no food or water until you hammer out an agreement - and if you don't succeed in 24 hours, I'm shooting the lot of you and starting with a fresh batch!
In other words, I would expect them to be on a par with negotiating peace in the middle east...
Of course campaign funding reform would fix that, but again, you'd see massive FUD - "They're taking away your right to support the candidate of your choice!"
I'll just quote part of my response to another poster:
I would want to know why he picked the kids up at school when it wasn't his turn, and when nobody knew that Nina was missing.
Addressing that would go towards a decent defense. Hand-waving about how "he's a geek" is just a red herring. It doesn't explain his apparent knowledge that Nina wasn't going to pick them up. It also discredits his claim that she left the country. If she left the country, HOW WOULD HE HAVE KNOWN THAT SHE WAS GONE so that he could pick up the kids?
Unless he comes up with an explanation of that, he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in my mind. Here's why...
Prosecution claims that Hans killed Nina
Defense claims that Nina left the country to frame Hans
Hans picked up the kids from school when he wasn't supposed to, and before he could have known that "Nina left the country" (if she did) or that she was killed (if she was)
For a genius, he's not so smart... his actions put the lie to his defense. The logical conclusion is that he knew Nina wasn't going to pick up the kids. How? According to his story (that she left the country to frame him), he would have no way of knowing that she wasn't going to pick them up that day... so he wouldn't have gone to pick them up. According to the prosecutors' theory, Hans knew because he killed her.
So lets say for the sake of argument that he didn't kill her. We still know his story is bogus, because he would not have known she left the country, so he would not have gone to pick up the kids.
the only other alternative is that he didn't kill her, but he knows who did. So why knowingly lie and say she left the country to frame him for murder? Why not just name the murderer?
Nope, it doesn't make sense. He picked up the kids, because he knew, before Nina was known to be missing, that she wasn't going to pick them up that day, even though it was her turn. If she had left the country, he couldn't have known at that point. His actions show guilty knowledge from his having killed her.
How about "don't discriminate against my client even though he has no reason for why he picked the kids up at school even though it wasn't his turn to, just because he has no explanation for something so strange, if you don't believe its just because he's strange, you're just discriminating against him because he's different."
I don't care that he's "different." I would want to know why he picked the kids up at school when it wasn't his turn, and when nobody knew that Nina was missing.
Addressing that would go towards a decent defense. Hand-waving about how "he's a geek" is just a red herring. It doesn't explain his apparent knowledge that Nina wasn't going to pick them up. It also discredits his claim that she left the country. If she left the country, HOW WOULD HE HAVE KNOWN so that he could pick up the kids?
Unless he comes up with an explanation of that, he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in my mind.
Forget the weirdness and just look at the facts:
Prosecution claims that Hans killed Nina
Defense claims that Nina left the country to frame Hans
Hans picked up the kids from school when he wasn't supposed to, and before he could have known that "Nina left the country" (if she did) or that she was killed (if she was)
For a genius, he's not so smart... his actions put the lie to his defense. The logical conclusion is that he knew Nina wasn't going to pick up the kids. How? According to his story, he would have no way of knowing that she wasn't going to pick them up that day... so he wouldn't have gone to pick them up. According to the prosecutors' theory, Hans knew because he killed her.
So lets say for the sake of argument that he didn't kill her. We still know his story is bogus, because he would not have known she left the country, so he would not have gone to pick up the kids.
the only other alternative is that he didn't kill her, but he knows who did. So why lie and say she left the country to frame him for murder?
Nope, it doesn't make sense. He picked up the kids, because he knew, before Nina was known to be missing, that she wasn't going to pick them up that day, even though it was her turn. If she had left the country, he couldn't have known at that point, so his guilty knowledge is from his having killed her.
IQ is distributed on a bell curve. Your "assumption" makes no sense in the real world. Also, how likely is it to find a bunch of people all with exactly the same IQ, except for 1? I would question the intelligence of anyone who put any confidence in such a cherry-picked sample (sorry - couldn't resist - you know I'm just pulling your leg, right;-0)
She framed him for murder and secretly moved back to Russia.
Why would she have to do that - she already had him dead to rights on a previous assault, she had a new job, she had the kids, he owed her $29k in child support, plus ongoing child support, Hans Reiser's own lawyer has admitted she was about to win financial sanctions against him over his foot-dragging... seems to me she was holding all the cards, and he had lots of motive to change the rules of the game.
if the investments lose money, you have no health care - they still get their cut
at age 65, we wash our hands of you, after taking our cut, so forget about all those expensive health problems old people have
its not insurance - if we lose money on you, we don't average it with other people in a collective risk pool - but we still get our cut
the premium never goes up - but medical expenses are increasing by 12% a year, doubling every 6 years. In 30 years, that $800k will buy $25k worth of health care in today's dollars. That will keep you in Depends in a nursing home for what, one year today?
Nonetheless, isn't there some kind of an economic argument that if insurance companies paid for people to avoid one big illness, with their longer lifespan they would end up costing the company more in smaller illnesses over time?
Plus, the quicker someone dies, the less chance they have of getting one of those expensive dieseases...
Its like social security - a REAL patriot will die on their 65th birthday!
emoving seats to save weight is a pretty common practice among people who want to make tiny cars go fast. Does it have a back seat? Or a spare tire and toolkit? Had anyone seen it with all seats intact before the murder?
Yes, the back seat is still there.
As for whether it has a toolkit, the bolts, and the socket set used to remove them, were also still there.
As to your last question, Reiser claims that he removed the seat because he was sleeping in the car, so yes, the seats were there until after the marriage breakup.
He claims to have thrown the seat in a dumpster. Why didn't he just stash the seat at his mothers' so he could get it back later if/when he needed it, or sell it, or, easiest of all, just put it at the curb-side garbage pickup so that either the city or someone driving by would take it?
His story doesn't make much sense. For someone who claims to be so intelligent, its just not logical...
Resier has been offered ample opportunity to fire his lawyer. At one point, the judge said to Reiser "If you're not happy with him, fire him now! Either way, the trial continues tomorrow."
If he's found guilty, he'll go the inevitable round of appeals, same as anyone else convicted of murder.
Take note of #3, she was sleeping with a CONFESSED MURDERER, Stan Sturgeon.
And that is relevant how? Really... it still gives Hans more motive to kill Nina than Stan (The Fish) Sturgeon. Stan had more motive to see her stay alive - at least he was "getting some". Hans blamed Nina for his financial problems, for the breakdown of their marriage, for a lot of things...
The more I read about the case, the more Hans Reiser comes across as another O.J. Simpson - angry, blaming a woman who decides she no longer wants to have anything to do with him for all his problems, who despite his intelligence, blamed someone else for his problems, and let his anger get the better of him.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they've got a "float" of repaired units.
Eventually, they have to "make good" on the float - but it will be at a lower cost, since their costs are going down each year. If you can "float" 100,000 units over 3 years, and save $100 per unit when you eventually have to replace that float, you've banked $10 million.
I just can't decide if the old one was discarded or some repair guy decided that he really liked the case and kept it.
The whole idea is that in Soviet Amerika, Second Internet spys on YOU!
duh!
Good point ... but a lot of banks kept a slice of the new debt for themselves as well, as well as buying stuff that inadvertently contained more toxic debt, which is why they're taking billions in write-downs. It turns out that the average $1,000 of mortgage debt has been sliced, resold, and re-packaged to the point where it represents ove $15,000 of "financial exposure" along the line.
The "unwinding" of this bad debt is going to leave the fed no choice but to try to inflate its way out.
Of course, this means that the next bubble, which everyone is saying will be "alternate energy", will either by even worse, or, for lack of "hard capital" domestically, will fizzle. Either way, all that's happening is putting off the day of reconning. Its very scary.
You need to look around. The Peter Principle is alive and well, and is easy enough to see. Look at all those clueless top management at the Fed, the White House, the banks, etc., - everyone who went against the obvious - that at some point a mortgage is only worth as much as the earning power of the person who is paying it - and brought us yet another crisis.
Why do you think that newer businesses can beat out older established competitors? Part of the reason is that the longer a business has been around, the more positions are filled by people who have been promoted to a position one higher than they are really capable of. So they're not all that competent, and their boss, who refuses to address it, is also incompetent. And his boss, and so on and so on and so on ...
Why has nobody mentioned Philippe Khan - founder of Borland - yet?
The guy was notorious for his predilection to hawaiian shirts. The louder the better.
He understood his target market.
Humans won't exist well before then.
Also, this isn't news. The original theory was that the sun would expand right out to the earth's orbit during its "red giant" phase. The idea that the earth might spiral out is relatively new ... all this does is confirm the original position.
In other words, in 7 billion years ... nothing to see here, move along ...
IQ is not a specific fixed number that doesn't change depending on test methods, environment, etc. That's why average is defined as 80 to 120 points.
Just as you have to use the right tools for the job, you also have to use the right terms. Like I said, most people think they're smarter than the average person, and they're not. They're average.
Average intelligence is not a knife-point edge. Average is defined as an IQ of between 80 to 120 (with half at 100), so the majority of people ARE either average or below average, despite the average person self-evaluating as being above-average in intelligence.
He had already lost custody. He was in danger of further sanctions from the bench because of his behaviour. I'm sure his lawyer told him many times not to f*ck around with custody and visitation or he'd end up with his broke ass in a jail cell and get only supervised visits. Thats how it works.
Neither Resier nor anyone else has offered any such explanation.
Kind of late in the day to do so, don't you think?
Also, the phone records were subpoenaed, and they don't support it - quite the contrary.
Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the one that makes the most sense - that he's a violent, egotistical SOB who ddn't like that his ex-wife had made a life on her own, and that he owed her $30,000, and that she slept with his friend, and that she got the kids, and that she was moving on with her life while he was $90k in debt, his business failing, and he blamed her and pulled an O.J.
Just answer this one question - why did he, in the middle of an acrimonious divorce that he was about to be judicially sanctioned for his foot-dragging, pick up the kids from school when it was Nina's turn to do so?
A reasonable person would conclude that he knew Nina wouldn't be picking them up.
If she had left the country as he claims, how would he know so quickly, before anyone else, that she wouldn't be picking up the kids?
His picking up the kids shows prior knowledge. Its a mistake. Even geeks make mistakes, sometime very stupid ones.
So, now that we have some reasonable suspicion, lets look at another question - why did he throw the seat in the dumpster?
If he just wanted to get rid of it, he could have left it by the curb for garbage day. Or he could have stashed it at his mothers', and picked it up if / when he needed it again. Instead, he says he drove around to someone else's dumpster, and dumped it there. That only makes sense if you don't want to be connected to the missing seat at some future date. For the same effort, he could have sold it for a few bucks at a scrap yard, with less risk of the dumpster owner calling the cops on him for using their dumpster. "But I'm a geek - I'm weird!" He doesn't add "Only when its convenient, baby ..."
When all is said and done, without an explanation for why he picked up the kids, I think a reasonable person would conclude he acted with specific knowledge about Nina.
No, I'm saying that his actions indicate his guilt.
He picked up the kids from school when it was Nina's turn ... before anyone could have known she was missing ...
No explanation for what appears to be prior knowledge that Nina, for one reason or another, wasn't going to be able to do it.
His actions are what I'm looking at - and that one in particular puts the lie to his claim that Nina is trying to frame him.
If Nina had left the country (as Hans claims) to try to make his disappearance look like murder, how would Hans have known to go and pick up the kids that day, when it wasn't his turn, in the middle of a very acrimonious divorce?
The "geek defense" doesn't explain his actions.
His having killed her does.
Means, motive, opportunity, and actions that betray knowledge of her "disappearance" before it was known by anyone else.
Saying he's a geek, or that he's weird, doesn't explain it. Prior knowledge does.
His actions speak for themselves. From here, they say he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. YMMV, and of course, not being in the courtroom, I obviously haven't heard the evidence the jury has heard, but someone is going to ask that question. Why did he pick up the kids, unless he already knew Nina wasn't going to pick them up?
Without some sort of an answer, I can only go by what his actions say.
How many congresscritters are beholden to campaign contributions from HMOs? How many HMOs are going to fund FUD campaigns screaming that "they're taking away your rights?"
I don't expect anything rational out of congress unless you lock them in a room and tell them, no food or water until you hammer out an agreement - and if you don't succeed in 24 hours, I'm shooting the lot of you and starting with a fresh batch!
In other words, I would expect them to be on a par with negotiating peace in the middle east ...
Of course campaign funding reform would fix that, but again, you'd see massive FUD - "They're taking away your right to support the candidate of your choice!"
The system is broken.
I'll just quote part of my response to another poster:
I would want to know why he picked the kids up at school when it wasn't his turn, and when nobody knew that Nina was missing.
Addressing that would go towards a decent defense. Hand-waving about how "he's a geek" is just a red herring. It doesn't explain his apparent knowledge that Nina wasn't going to pick them up. It also discredits his claim that she left the country. If she left the country, HOW WOULD HE HAVE KNOWN THAT SHE WAS GONE so that he could pick up the kids?
Unless he comes up with an explanation of that, he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in my mind. Here's why ...
-
Prosecution claims that Hans killed Nina
-
Defense claims that Nina left the country to frame Hans
-
Hans picked up the kids from school when he wasn't supposed to, and before he could have known that "Nina left the country" (if she did) or that she was killed (if she was)
For a genius, he's not so smartSo lets say for the sake of argument that he didn't kill her. We still know his story is bogus, because he would not have known she left the country, so he would not have gone to pick up the kids.
the only other alternative is that he didn't kill her, but he knows who did. So why knowingly lie and say she left the country to frame him for murder? Why not just name the murderer?
Nope, it doesn't make sense. He picked up the kids, because he knew, before Nina was known to be missing, that she wasn't going to pick them up that day, even though it was her turn. If she had left the country, he couldn't have known at that point. His actions show guilty knowledge from his having killed her.
How about "don't discriminate against my client even though he has no reason for why he picked the kids up at school even though it wasn't his turn to, just because he has no explanation for something so strange, if you don't believe its just because he's strange, you're just discriminating against him because he's different."
I don't care that he's "different." I would want to know why he picked the kids up at school when it wasn't his turn, and when nobody knew that Nina was missing.
Addressing that would go towards a decent defense. Hand-waving about how "he's a geek" is just a red herring. It doesn't explain his apparent knowledge that Nina wasn't going to pick them up. It also discredits his claim that she left the country. If she left the country, HOW WOULD HE HAVE KNOWN so that he could pick up the kids?
Unless he comes up with an explanation of that, he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in my mind.
Forget the weirdness and just look at the facts:
- Prosecution claims that Hans killed Nina
- Defense claims that Nina left the country to frame Hans
- Hans picked up the kids from school when he wasn't supposed to, and before he could have known that "Nina left the country" (if she did) or that she was killed (if she was)
For a genius, he's not so smartSo lets say for the sake of argument that he didn't kill her. We still know his story is bogus, because he would not have known she left the country, so he would not have gone to pick up the kids.
the only other alternative is that he didn't kill her, but he knows who did. So why lie and say she left the country to frame him for murder?
Nope, it doesn't make sense. He picked up the kids, because he knew, before Nina was known to be missing, that she wasn't going to pick them up that day, even though it was her turn. If she had left the country, he couldn't have known at that point, so his guilty knowledge is from his having killed her.
IQ is distributed on a bell curve. Your "assumption" makes no sense in the real world. Also, how likely is it to find a bunch of people all with exactly the same IQ, except for 1? I would question the intelligence of anyone who put any confidence in such a cherry-picked sample (sorry - couldn't resist - you know I'm just pulling your leg, right ;-0)
Why would she have to do that - she already had him dead to rights on a previous assault, she had a new job, she had the kids, he owed her $29k in child support, plus ongoing child support, Hans Reiser's own lawyer has admitted she was about to win financial sanctions against him over his foot-dragging ... seems to me she was holding all the cards, and he had lots of motive to change the rules of the game.
In other words,
Plus, the quicker someone dies, the less chance they have of getting one of those expensive dieseases ...
Its like social security - a REAL patriot will die on their 65th birthday!
-
Yes, the back seat is still there.
-
As for whether it has a toolkit, the bolts, and the socket set used to remove them, were also still there.
-
As to your last question, Reiser claims that he removed the seat because he was sleeping in the car, so yes, the seats were there until after the marriage breakup.
He claims to have thrown the seat in a dumpster. Why didn't he just stash the seat at his mothers' so he could get it back later if/when he needed it, or sell it, or, easiest of all, just put it at the curb-side garbage pickup so that either the city or someone driving by would take it?His story doesn't make much sense. For someone who claims to be so intelligent, its just not logical ...
Resier has been offered ample opportunity to fire his lawyer. At one point, the judge said to Reiser "If you're not happy with him, fire him now! Either way, the trial continues tomorrow."
If he's found guilty, he'll go the inevitable round of appeals, same as anyone else convicted of murder.
And that is relevant how? Really ... it still gives Hans more motive to kill Nina than Stan (The Fish) Sturgeon. Stan had more motive to see her stay alive - at least he was "getting some". Hans blamed Nina for his financial problems, for the breakdown of their marriage, for a lot of things ...
The more I read about the case, the more Hans Reiser comes across as another O.J. Simpson - angry, blaming a woman who decides she no longer wants to have anything to do with him for all his problems, who despite his intelligence, blamed someone else for his problems, and let his anger get the better of him.