Lenders want to lend. If the credit-worthiness data does not correlate well with ability to repay, lenders cannot efficiently lend and will look for a different service. The number of participants in this space might make this a slow change, but normal market competitiveness has the opportunity to have effect.
In VW's case, the number of managers and engineers who had anything to do with the emissions testing of diesel vehicles for export to the US is probably dwarfed by the number of people would could be hurt by an overreaction.
I would argue that all employees of VW benefited from one degree to another from this decision, since it improved VW's bottom line. In general, when a company's bottom line improves, it benefits the current employees (in addition to shareholders, obviously).
That is the part that needs to stop, actual specific people who profit from/make decisions to profit from such things, need to go to prison.
Shareholders do profit from such decisions. If the decision was not made, company profit margins would have been less. Shareholders, being owners, are who corporate profits flow to.
I think you misunderstood me. My suggestion was that instead of fines that could bankrupt the company and cause a destructive loss of value, transfer value from the existing shareholders via some mechanism, allowing the company to continue to operate. In effect, perform something similar to US Chapter 11 bankruptcy (like GM's/American Airlines), but trying ensuring there is a payoff to creditors.
Transferring ownership is the same what happens when a company goes into bankruptcy Chapter 7: creditors get the proceeds from the sold off components of the company, and shareholders are left dry. Even in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, owners' shares normally go to 0 and new stock is issued.
Ideally in the VW case, if the penalties are high enough that could not be worked through with the German equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, there's a way of transferring value to the creditors from the shareholders. This can be done by issuing new stock to creditors, while various mechanisms can remove effectively value from the current class of shares.
Punishing the employees and shareholders does nothing, the vast majority of them had no idea this was happening.
Shareholders hold the value of the company, and so that is where any value extraction must take place from. Additionally, shareholders are ultimately responsible, since they own VW. They appoint the board, who oversee the company.
Don't worry, if the company goes bankrupt you'll lose the value in your shares anyways (beyond the 30% it's already dropped). Transferring ownership at least keeps them in business.
Of course share should be transferred from owners-- you're an owner of VW, and hence responsible (albeit indirectly) for the company's actions.
Shareholders appoint board members, who oversee the company. Shareholders must the ones ultimately left holding the bag for civil violations, since they're the ones who own the value associated with the company.
Even Scalia believes you need to look at the law's construct (in constrast to the architect's personal opinions):
Who said that we "must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme"? Why, it was Justice Scalia (actually quoting an earlier opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) in a decision just a year ago.
And who said that "a provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme" because "only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law"? Why, Justice Scalia again.
It would be nice if they focused on fixing the certificate authority structure by supporting DANE, using DNS records to indicate certificates. Even though there is plenty of interest at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... , Mozilla doesn't seem interested in solving this problem: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
Vietnam: Crashmarik is exactly correct. The United States _won_ the war in Vietnam.
"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. 'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'" -- Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr. and Colonel Tu, April 1975, described in the book On Strategy.
Whether or not I know how to run a hotel is irrevelant. The driving point I'm making is that customers do have a right to complain. Simly put:
1) Clients have a right to complain about their experience, no matter their booking arrangements. Such a complaint on a review site is perfectly valid. A hotel cannot reply to the review saying "they booked through an agency, so *shrug*", and it's settled. Other potential customers would not appreciate that attitude. Whether or not that's how hotels operate that way is not important -- a complaint in the lines of "I received poor service" is valid and provides true value to future potential customers.
2) Clients are not paid to do the work for management in reporting issues. Whether or not you may get a benefit from doing work for management is besides the point: the customer isn't signing up to do such work. The client expects good service independent of whether or not they do work for the owners. Management from various industries that value providing good service pay outside companies to evaluate their offering -- they don't expect the customer to do free work.
I know quite a few hoteliers (protip: if you want a good room, book direct and not through an agency)
People don't want to have to deal with handing over booking details to each and every different hotel they may reserve at. If the hotel is providing lower-quality rooms for customers paying through an agency, the customer definitely has a right to complain. They aren't being offered a choice of room upon booking, and have no way of expressing a preference to pay more or less for different experiences.
the problem is that people are too meek (read: gutless) to bring a problem to a owner/managers attention. So the live with the problem for their entire stay and then make a "scathing" review on Yelp or trip advisor. So often a guest can do something about their problem with a short conversation with the owner or manager (or front desk if its a big hotel) but wont. Often the hotel management doesn't know about the problem (previous guests hide or ignore them because they're scared of being charged for it) and managers cant count on housekeepers working for minimum wage (or less in some countries) who have dozens of rooms to do, to do a thorough inspection when a guest leaves.
First, you're expecting the customer to do work for management. I don't know how many hotel customers are repeat customers, but from my own experience, I don't know if I've ever gone to the same hotel twice. Once I've stayed at the hotel and had a poor experience, I don't have incentive to report it to the management. I just want to leave and get back on with my trip.
I agree with your bit about the special build phase speeding up the games, we just skip that rule for simplicity and reducing the need for attentiveness when it's not your turn. I also agree with your points about trading -- I try to chime in and discourage people offering open-ended trades. You're free to ask "I'm looking for a brick", but not "What will someone give me for a brick".
What we have recently found to help the game along is Helpers of Catan. These helpers reduce the absolutely necessity of trading, and often make the game more "efficient" through the small bonuses they give.
My wife and I very commonly play games with our friends. We break games up into two types: party games, and "long-form" games. The party games are meant for slightly larger groups, with high iterations. Long-form games are good for 4-6 people, spending the night playing one game in a more "serious" manner.
Wouldn't you think using two feet is less complex than being required to move your foot around all the time, needing to keep the state of what foot is where, instead of just being programmed to always do the same action with the correct leg?
We seem to have no problem with people using one arm for one thing, another for something else: video game controllers, keyboards and mouse, etc.
True, that might be what would occur too. But why not use two feet since we have them? I'm not convinced that hitting both pedals simultaneously is a big concern though...brakes override the engine, and from my experience I'm extremely hard-wired to only using my left for braking. It'd be dangerous for me to use my right.
Slashdot Mirror
Lenders want to lend. If the credit-worthiness data does not correlate well with ability to repay, lenders cannot efficiently lend and will look for a different service. The number of participants in this space might make this a slow change, but normal market competitiveness has the opportunity to have effect.
I would argue that all employees of VW benefited from one degree to another from this decision, since it improved VW's bottom line. In general, when a company's bottom line improves, it benefits the current employees (in addition to shareholders, obviously).
Shareholders do profit from such decisions. If the decision was not made, company profit margins would have been less. Shareholders, being owners, are who corporate profits flow to.
I think you misunderstood me. My suggestion was that instead of fines that could bankrupt the company and cause a destructive loss of value, transfer value from the existing shareholders via some mechanism, allowing the company to continue to operate. In effect, perform something similar to US Chapter 11 bankruptcy (like GM's/American Airlines), but trying ensuring there is a payoff to creditors.
Transferring ownership is the same what happens when a company goes into bankruptcy Chapter 7: creditors get the proceeds from the sold off components of the company, and shareholders are left dry. Even in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, owners' shares normally go to 0 and new stock is issued.
Ideally in the VW case, if the penalties are high enough that could not be worked through with the German equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, there's a way of transferring value to the creditors from the shareholders. This can be done by issuing new stock to creditors, while various mechanisms can remove effectively value from the current class of shares.
Shareholders hold the value of the company, and so that is where any value extraction must take place from. Additionally, shareholders are ultimately responsible, since they own VW. They appoint the board, who oversee the company.
Don't worry, if the company goes bankrupt you'll lose the value in your shares anyways (beyond the 30% it's already dropped). Transferring ownership at least keeps them in business.
Of course share should be transferred from owners-- you're an owner of VW, and hence responsible (albeit indirectly) for the company's actions.
Shareholders appoint board members, who oversee the company. Shareholders must the ones ultimately left holding the bag for civil violations, since they're the ones who own the value associated with the company.
Transfer shares of ownership to the victims. Jobs are saved, and the company does not go bankrupt.
Criminal penalties against individuals are still appropriate though.
Google Voice?
Redirecting voicemail to Google Voice.
Even Scalia believes you need to look at the law's construct (in constrast to the architect's personal opinions):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...
It would be nice if they focused on fixing the certificate authority structure by supporting DANE, using DNS records to indicate certificates. Even though there is plenty of interest at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... , Mozilla doesn't seem interested in solving this problem:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
I wonder how long it takes to recoup the cost of this disruption by continuing to carry lighter manuals.
"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. 'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'"
-- Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr. and Colonel Tu, April 1975, described in the book On Strategy.
They've investigating the funding sources of people who disagree with scientific consensus.
Didn't browsers announce for HTTP 1.1 as well? Why should expectations be significantly different w.r.t. pipelining?
People re-use passwords across sites.
Whether or not I know how to run a hotel is irrevelant. The driving point I'm making is that customers do have a right to complain. Simly put:
1) Clients have a right to complain about their experience, no matter their booking arrangements. Such a complaint on a review site is perfectly valid. A hotel cannot reply to the review saying "they booked through an agency, so *shrug*", and it's settled. Other potential customers would not appreciate that attitude. Whether or not that's how hotels operate that way is not important -- a complaint in the lines of "I received poor service" is valid and provides true value to future potential customers.
2) Clients are not paid to do the work for management in reporting issues. Whether or not you may get a benefit from doing work for management is besides the point: the customer isn't signing up to do such work. The client expects good service independent of whether or not they do work for the owners. Management from various industries that value providing good service pay outside companies to evaluate their offering -- they don't expect the customer to do free work.
I have a couple of of issues:
People don't want to have to deal with handing over booking details to each and every different hotel they may reserve at. If the hotel is providing lower-quality rooms for customers paying through an agency, the customer definitely has a right to complain. They aren't being offered a choice of room upon booking, and have no way of expressing a preference to pay more or less for different experiences.
First, you're expecting the customer to do work for management. I don't know how many hotel customers are repeat customers, but from my own experience, I don't know if I've ever gone to the same hotel twice. Once I've stayed at the hotel and had a poor experience, I don't have incentive to report it to the management. I just want to leave and get back on with my trip.
I agree with your bit about the special build phase speeding up the games, we just skip that rule for simplicity and reducing the need for attentiveness when it's not your turn. I also agree with your points about trading -- I try to chime in and discourage people offering open-ended trades. You're free to ask "I'm looking for a brick", but not "What will someone give me for a brick".
What we have recently found to help the game along is Helpers of Catan. These helpers reduce the absolutely necessity of trading, and often make the game more "efficient" through the small bonuses they give.
http://www.catan.com/game/cata...
We just don't do the optional build phase. This allows people to build up larger hands, and makes a 7-roll more devastating exciting.
My wife and I very commonly play games with our friends. We break games up into two types: party games, and "long-form" games.
The party games are meant for slightly larger groups, with high iterations.
Long-form games are good for 4-6 people, spending the night playing one game in a more "serious" manner.
Favorite party games:
* Catchphrase (great party-starter)
* Turbo Cranium
* Charoodles
* Imaginiff
Favorite long-form games (3-4 hours):
* Settlers of Catan (with at least Seafarers or Traders & Barbarians)
* Ticket to Ride (Europe)
* Carcassonne
We tried Pandemic, a co-op game, but it wasn't that big of a hit. I'm hoping we try Robinson Crusoe: Cursed Island soon.
Wouldn't you think using two feet is less complex than being required to move your foot around all the time, needing to keep the state of what foot is where, instead of just being programmed to always do the same action with the correct leg?
We seem to have no problem with people using one arm for one thing, another for something else: video game controllers, keyboards and mouse, etc.
I have no real advice on what we should do about stick...perhaps the clutch is in the middle?
True, that might be what would occur too. But why not use two feet since we have them? I'm not convinced that hitting both pedals simultaneously is a big concern though...brakes override the engine, and from my experience I'm extremely hard-wired to only using my left for braking. It'd be dangerous for me to use my right.