Money left in the corporation can only be used for 2 things - reinvest in the business or pay employees/shareholders.
Actually, it can also be held useless in minimal interest-bearing accounts until enough cash is siphoned from more productive endeavors in society to collapse the economy. Many think that this is happening to some extent now. Yes, eventually, the money will be returned to shareholders, but as Keynes famously noted (and the one indisputable thing he said), "In the long run, we are all dead." So, yes, corporations can sit on cash for a long time doing nothing even as useful as "reinvesting in the business".
Flat is flat. Regressive is regressive. The meaning of regressive taxation is that the percentage of income paid as taxes goes down as income raises.
Fine. I'll take flatness in utility over flatness in rate because that's closer to "economically just" (i.e., the same level of economic pain is felt by each member of the taxpaying community) and reduces wealth inequality (this being important because I want to halt our slide - and eventually reverse it - towards third world inequality levels). I know that's harder to calculate than a flat rate tax, but I'm willing to live with an approximation because I believe the results are ultimately better.
That's "Gilded Age". If it was actually a "Guilded Age", we might be able to make a bit more progress on working conditions. Better yet, if it were a "Unioned Age", we might make real progress again.
... his district includes a number of employees at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (headquartered in Indy) and his anti-vaccination stance puts him at odds with their best interests.
Not necessarily. Pharmaceutical firms hate vaccines. They hate the costs associated with producing them, they hate the governmental restrictions on pricing, and they'd like to get out of the business altogether. And many pharmaceutical companies don't actually produce vaccines, but may produce drugs for the amelioration of symptoms due to and/or cure for the disease caused by the pathogen.
In short, don't assume that Burton is working against anyone's interest other than those of the general populace, whose health he's endangering with his stupidity.
Most people I've talked to have refused to upgrade to Windows 8 because it's incomprehensible.
OK, first let me say that I am not a fan of Windows (actually, I'm sort of down on the whole OS universe at this point) in any way, shape, or form. That being said, I know of at least one person who actually loves Win 8. This individual is not a complete technology novice, having had experience with previous Windows OS's. She's an interior designer who likes the new interface which, to her at least, seems more "visual" and "tactile" than the old ones. I know that she is probably in the minority, but it looks like Microsoft's designers at least tested it against other designers. Great, if you want an OS for artists, I guess.
Actually, I know I am on the left. For the last thirty years, I have watched government be pushed to the right by a shift in the Overton Window. And now you believe that the solution is for me to "moderate" myself? I think not.
If anything, it is the right that needs to moderate. We on the left have had no economic effect but a steady erosion of the social safety net, an incredible increase in wealth inequality, and a concomitant increase in bellicosity and militarism over the past thirty years - something that the right has had as a gain.
Tell us on the left to moderate when we actually see some gains.
Actually, you should read "Designing Object-Oriented Software" by Wirfs-Brock, Wilkerson, and Weiner. It was written years before Meyers book (i.e., really at the beginning of the OO methodlogies) and is much less "Eiffellicious", which makes it much more salient and less specific than Meyer's (now dated because of the use of Eiffel) work.
You should also read the papers on Sketchpad, Simula, Smalltalk, Flavors, and CLOS to see where OO languages actually came from and Cunningham and Beck's publications on CRC cards to see where OO methodologies really started. And then read Ungar's stuff on Self to see where prototypical OO languages like Javascript had their origins. That should get you through the OO historical chain...
Next up, logic and functional programming languages, followed by array, macro-substitution, string-processing, and set-oriented languages. Once you get through those (only a couple dozen papers/books), you might be ready for multi-paradigm languages and the history of concurrency. Then you might be safe to actually program something useful...
PLATO, which I developed lessons for and which I used extensively in course work, did not generally use the touch screen for anything more than simple target selection by pointing and single-clicking. It was a fairly coarse-grained pointing system, as well. I doubt that most smartphone or tablet users would consider it usable at this point.
Nor does it make what Tim Cook said about vertical screens incorrect - dragging and multi-point operations on a vertical screen are not only awkward feeling, but have a severe chance of causing RSI, given the odd geometry of the hand needed to do such things.
Try it on your own non-touch screen. Do you think holding your wrist canted at 90 degrees for more than a few seconds for multi-point gestures is comfortable? Do you think the motion of a multi-click, using the hand muscles, is less fatiguing than doing it on a horizontal surface, where a smaller finger muscle is twitched? And don't even get me started on relative accuracy...
I don't see the summary for the article as much more than Apple-hating flamebait.
He didn't "take" anything. Apple "bought" the rights from Xerox with Apple stock. Stock which, by the way, continued to increase before Xerox sold it.
Besides, if the company that has something doesn't recognize its value and has absolutely no plans to market it successfully, and the company buying that thing also improves it immensely, the only question left to ask is this: Does that make the company that buys it an innovator (as they have had to innovate to improve) or a savior of the technology? Especially if they end up hiring many of the people who developed the technology in the first place?
But why is that? Was this situation 'naturally selected' because of a compination of Oceania's geographical placement and some opportunistic merchants, because of something more sinister, or what? Any insights?
It's because we have to translate the manuals into Australian.
On the other hand, it could be worse - look what we do with the Canadians, eh?
Unless you're a spoiler in this race, given your polling numbers, you're a no-op. Let the big boys who actually have a chance to win take the time to answer the moderator's questions in a sane (i.e., non-Libertarian) manner. All you'd do is waste time - sort of like a jester at the court.
A second for this movie - definitely worth watching, keeps you guessing how the whole thing's going to be resolved until the end. One of the better science fiction movies I've seen in quite a while.
Copyright law is a federal law. Therefore the federal government has jurisdiction, if they want to view the defendant's actions as a violation of this law. Both the grand jury and judge seemed to agree.
Second, I doubt that JSTOR's servers are located in Massachusetts (where the downloading occurred). This means the telecommunication that enabled it almost certainly crossed state lines, giving the feds another hook to hang their federal charges on, even if it is just "theft of service".
In short, it seems reasonable to try this as a federal case, even if the laws broken are unreasonable.
If most think tanks watched a puppy growing for the first month of its life, they would conclude that one year from now it will be 300-foot-tall monster trashing downtown Tokyo.
It's hugely important to get recruitment right, as a wrong call can have consequences that last months or years.
Which is why most sane companies have a probationary period written into their employment agreements, where a poorly performing new employee can be terminated after a set period of time (usually 3 or 6 months). You are almost never stuck with an underperforming employee for "years". Months? Maybe, but I consider myself lucky that I don't need to make a decision that locks me into a long term HR-mediated performance struggle after just a few hours of interviewing.
Actually, I'd be wondering how federal law deals with lack of minimum wage here - i.e., what's the minimum time necessary for an "unpaid" interviewee to be viewed as an employee under federal law? I know that companies have been dinged by the feds with respect to unpaid internships. What's preventing these slimeballs from holding the "interview that never ends" for people who are desperate enough?
The latter is more correctly categorized as "naturopathy". For some ailments, it can work as well as traditional medicine because plants do have various chemicals that can cure disease.
Now there's the issue of those chemicals not being "clean" (i.e., mixed with other undesirable substances), not knowing the dosage (because the amount of the useful chemical varies from plant to plant), and, of course, misidentification of plants (which can lead to one ingesting the wrong chemical). And though all of the issues mentioned can arise when a chemical (which, in this usage, is referred to as a drug) in pill, elixer, injection, or suppository form is prescribed by a physician and used as directed by the patient, the likelihood of an undesired outcome is lowered considerably when the forces of science and modern manufacturing technology are brought to bear.
Of course, feel free to chew on a willow branch instead of taking an aspirin for your dose of acetylsalicylic acid - I certainly won't stop you. But when you end up with your muscles still aching because your jaw muscles and teeth gave out before the pain was gone, don't come crying to me.
Professors that use online homework because they do not want to bother are incredibly lazy in my opinion.
You get what you reward. Professors who achieve tenure based on production of research grants and published papers have little time left for the tedium and mechanics of teaching - especially in lower-level classes. If the administration valued teaching more highly, they'd get more of it.
I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.
It's not all of us militating for this - only aselectsubset. Figure out what to do with those folks and you wouldn't have the problems you talk about. God knows the rest of us have tried...
Yes, it's possible, it's always possible, it's a question of time and money.
Obviously, you've never had a marketing person ask for something that is so out of the ballpark that it would be an equivalent of solving "strong AI" problems (where you can't give an estimate) - it's not always "possible". The answer to which must be, "We can't do that, but we could do this," where "this" is at least a tractable problem and puts you back in the realm of your question #1.
Slashdot Mirror
Money left in the corporation can only be used for 2 things - reinvest in the business or pay employees/shareholders.
Actually, it can also be held useless in minimal interest-bearing accounts until enough cash is siphoned from more productive endeavors in society to collapse the economy. Many think that this is happening to some extent now. Yes, eventually, the money will be returned to shareholders, but as Keynes famously noted (and the one indisputable thing he said), "In the long run, we are all dead." So, yes, corporations can sit on cash for a long time doing nothing even as useful as "reinvesting in the business".
Flat is flat. Regressive is regressive. The meaning of regressive taxation is that the percentage of income paid as taxes goes down as income raises.
Fine. I'll take flatness in utility over flatness in rate because that's closer to "economically just" (i.e., the same level of economic pain is felt by each member of the taxpaying community) and reduces wealth inequality (this being important because I want to halt our slide - and eventually reverse it - towards third world inequality levels). I know that's harder to calculate than a flat rate tax, but I'm willing to live with an approximation because I believe the results are ultimately better.
Australia is quite a bit 'taller', north to south (especially if you include Tasmania).
I don't think you can drive to Tasmania. But if the Apple Maps App told people they could, they'd probably go for it.
This is the new Guilded Age.
That's "Gilded Age". If it was actually a "Guilded Age", we might be able to make a bit more progress on working conditions. Better yet, if it were a "Unioned Age", we might make real progress again.
... his district includes a number of employees at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (headquartered in Indy) and his anti-vaccination stance puts him at odds with their best interests.
Not necessarily. Pharmaceutical firms hate vaccines. They hate the costs associated with producing them, they hate the governmental restrictions on pricing, and they'd like to get out of the business altogether. And many pharmaceutical companies don't actually produce vaccines, but may produce drugs for the amelioration of symptoms due to and/or cure for the disease caused by the pathogen.
In short, don't assume that Burton is working against anyone's interest other than those of the general populace, whose health he's endangering with his stupidity.
Most people I've talked to have refused to upgrade to Windows 8 because it's incomprehensible.
OK, first let me say that I am not a fan of Windows (actually, I'm sort of down on the whole OS universe at this point) in any way, shape, or form. That being said, I know of at least one person who actually loves Win 8. This individual is not a complete technology novice, having had experience with previous Windows OS's. She's an interior designer who likes the new interface which, to her at least, seems more "visual" and "tactile" than the old ones. I know that she is probably in the minority, but it looks like Microsoft's designers at least tested it against other designers. Great, if you want an OS for artists, I guess.
Actually, I know I am on the left. For the last thirty years, I have watched government be pushed to the right by a shift in the Overton Window. And now you believe that the solution is for me to "moderate" myself? I think not.
If anything, it is the right that needs to moderate. We on the left have had no economic effect but a steady erosion of the social safety net, an incredible increase in wealth inequality, and a concomitant increase in bellicosity and militarism over the past thirty years - something that the right has had as a gain.
Tell us on the left to moderate when we actually see some gains.
Actually, you should read "Designing Object-Oriented Software" by Wirfs-Brock, Wilkerson, and Weiner. It was written years before Meyers book (i.e., really at the beginning of the OO methodlogies) and is much less "Eiffellicious", which makes it much more salient and less specific than Meyer's (now dated because of the use of Eiffel) work.
You should also read the papers on Sketchpad, Simula, Smalltalk, Flavors, and CLOS to see where OO languages actually came from and Cunningham and Beck's publications on CRC cards to see where OO methodologies really started. And then read Ungar's stuff on Self to see where prototypical OO languages like Javascript had their origins. That should get you through the OO historical chain...
Next up, logic and functional programming languages, followed by array, macro-substitution, string-processing, and set-oriented languages. Once you get through those (only a couple dozen papers/books), you might be ready for multi-paradigm languages and the history of concurrency. Then you might be safe to actually program something useful...
PLATO, which I developed lessons for and which I used extensively in course work, did not generally use the touch screen for anything more than simple target selection by pointing and single-clicking. It was a fairly coarse-grained pointing system, as well. I doubt that most smartphone or tablet users would consider it usable at this point.
Nor does it make what Tim Cook said about vertical screens incorrect - dragging and multi-point operations on a vertical screen are not only awkward feeling, but have a severe chance of causing RSI, given the odd geometry of the hand needed to do such things.
Try it on your own non-touch screen. Do you think holding your wrist canted at 90 degrees for more than a few seconds for multi-point gestures is comfortable? Do you think the motion of a multi-click, using the hand muscles, is less fatiguing than doing it on a horizontal surface, where a smaller finger muscle is twitched? And don't even get me started on relative accuracy...
I don't see the summary for the article as much more than Apple-hating flamebait.
He didn't "take" anything. Apple "bought" the rights from Xerox with Apple stock. Stock which, by the way, continued to increase before Xerox sold it.
Besides, if the company that has something doesn't recognize its value and has absolutely no plans to market it successfully, and the company buying that thing also improves it immensely, the only question left to ask is this: Does that make the company that buys it an innovator (as they have had to innovate to improve) or a savior of the technology? Especially if they end up hiring many of the people who developed the technology in the first place?
But why is that? Was this situation 'naturally selected' because of a compination of Oceania's geographical placement and some opportunistic merchants, because of something more sinister, or what? Any insights?
It's because we have to translate the manuals into Australian.
On the other hand, it could be worse - look what we do with the Canadians, eh?
3 months in the actual cost of the upgrade was over $100,000...
What cheapskates! That's like five billable hours, right?
... he will raise important issues
Uh, no. Libertarians, like most insane people, do not "raise important issues". They blather insanely.
Glad I could help you with that.
Well, except for the ones by Ayn Rand - those made me more stupid. So I had to read some Chomsky and Borges to fix that.
Unless you're a spoiler in this race, given your polling numbers, you're a no-op. Let the big boys who actually have a chance to win take the time to answer the moderator's questions in a sane (i.e., non-Libertarian) manner. All you'd do is waste time - sort of like a jester at the court.
A second for this movie - definitely worth watching, keeps you guessing how the whole thing's going to be resolved until the end. One of the better science fiction movies I've seen in quite a while.
Copyright law is a federal law. Therefore the federal government has jurisdiction, if they want to view the defendant's actions as a violation of this law. Both the grand jury and judge seemed to agree.
Second, I doubt that JSTOR's servers are located in Massachusetts (where the downloading occurred). This means the telecommunication that enabled it almost certainly crossed state lines, giving the feds another hook to hang their federal charges on, even if it is just "theft of service".
In short, it seems reasonable to try this as a federal case, even if the laws broken are unreasonable.
If most think tanks watched a puppy growing for the first month of its life, they would conclude that one year from now it will be 300-foot-tall monster trashing downtown Tokyo.
Absolutely! And this is why Puppies Must Die!!!!
It's hugely important to get recruitment right, as a wrong call can have consequences that last months or years.
Which is why most sane companies have a probationary period written into their employment agreements, where a poorly performing new employee can be terminated after a set period of time (usually 3 or 6 months). You are almost never stuck with an underperforming employee for "years". Months? Maybe, but I consider myself lucky that I don't need to make a decision that locks me into a long term HR-mediated performance struggle after just a few hours of interviewing.
Actually, I'd be wondering how federal law deals with lack of minimum wage here - i.e., what's the minimum time necessary for an "unpaid" interviewee to be viewed as an employee under federal law? I know that companies have been dinged by the feds with respect to unpaid internships. What's preventing these slimeballs from holding the "interview that never ends" for people who are desperate enough?
The latter is more correctly categorized as "naturopathy". For some ailments, it can work as well as traditional medicine because plants do have various chemicals that can cure disease.
Now there's the issue of those chemicals not being "clean" (i.e., mixed with other undesirable substances), not knowing the dosage (because the amount of the useful chemical varies from plant to plant), and, of course, misidentification of plants (which can lead to one ingesting the wrong chemical). And though all of the issues mentioned can arise when a chemical (which, in this usage, is referred to as a drug) in pill, elixer, injection, or suppository form is prescribed by a physician and used as directed by the patient, the likelihood of an undesired outcome is lowered considerably when the forces of science and modern manufacturing technology are brought to bear.
Of course, feel free to chew on a willow branch instead of taking an aspirin for your dose of acetylsalicylic acid - I certainly won't stop you. But when you end up with your muscles still aching because your jaw muscles and teeth gave out before the pain was gone, don't come crying to me.
It's like having government-funded exorcisms or voodoo rituals to cleanse the bad mojo out of a person.
Man, I could have used that for some people I've worked with! The only thing was that I was waiting for the government to pay for it...
I am sorry, but it had to be said!
No, it didn't...
Professors that use online homework because they do not want to bother are incredibly lazy in my opinion.
You get what you reward. Professors who achieve tenure based on production of research grants and published papers have little time left for the tedium and mechanics of teaching - especially in lower-level classes. If the administration valued teaching more highly, they'd get more of it.
I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.
It's not all of us militating for this - only a select subset. Figure out what to do with those folks and you wouldn't have the problems you talk about. God knows the rest of us have tried...
Yes, it's possible, it's always possible, it's a question of time and money.
Obviously, you've never had a marketing person ask for something that is so out of the ballpark that it would be an equivalent of solving "strong AI" problems (where you can't give an estimate) - it's not always "possible". The answer to which must be, "We can't do that, but we could do this," where "this" is at least a tractable problem and puts you back in the realm of your question #1.