Both the United States and the Soviet Union built relatively small warheads for tactical use during the Cold War. For example the United States deployed, for a very brief period of time, the W54 warhead on the jeep or tripod mounted recoilless launcher as the man-portable M-388 Davy Crockett. The warhead was said to have weighed around 75 pounds, so it probably could have been fit into a suitcase; albeit a rather large one. Indeed, the same warhead was also made available for use by special operations forces in the form of a satchel-charge: Special Atomic Demolition Munition. There was also a test of the W54 in an artillery shell format: Upshot Knothole Grable.
None of these weapons ever saw wide deployment for many reasons, including: (1) the weapons were almost as dangerous to their users as they were to any potential enemy because the firing forces would be subjecting themselves to the possibility of contamination by their own fallout or even their own blast effects and (2) because the weapons had to be deployed relatively close to where they were going to be used, due to short ranges, it was possible that they might be captured by the enemy and re-used against us. In the end these weapons were best described a stop-gap measures against a potential massive Soviet ground invasion until something better came along, which it did rather quickly in the form of rapidly advancing missile technology; rendering these sorts of weapons obsolete.
Nothing has changed that makes the US more likely to default.
That depends upon what one means by "default". With the US government, it's not a simple as whether or not it can pay its bills because, by definition, they can always pay their bills...with inflated dollars. So while it's true that the government cannot "default" in the same way that a private business or individual can; they can choose to "repay" their creditors with much less economic value than those creditors expected to receive by handing them ever more worthless dollars. When people in the media and the public talk about the government "defaulting" on its debts they are mostly referring to the later and not so much the former. The US government is eventually going to pull the inflation ripcord to get out from under this. Everyone knows this. If you doubt this, look at the long term prices of hard assets, especially ones that store value, like gold. The prices on those assets are long term up, up, up.
Perhaps they could arrange their shifts so that they aren't both working at the same time when little Bobby finishes the school day? Why must I pay for Bobby's after school program simply to enable his parent's greatest convenience? My parents both worked when I was growing up (my father and mother ran a small business together) and I walked home and did my chores and homework every weekday after school while waiting for my parents to return. It's time for Bobby to suck it up and learn the value of discipline and self-reliance. Of course, that's precisely what the left doesn't want little Bobby to learn.
Lots of lashing out and gnashing-of-teeth from Obama supporters tonight
Anything which reduces spending or even just slows the growth of government, with the possible exception of defense, annoys those on the left because it weakens the bonds of the average person's dependency on the state and by extension their (i.e. the politicos) power over them.
Nobody forces you to believe their ratings; You're free to draw your own conclusions and trade (or not) accordingly. S&P and Moody's offer their opinion concerning the quality of an investment, but ultimately that's all it is; an opinion. This is fraud how? Remember what Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger and other value greats have always advised: avoid investments in businesses that you don't understand.
Interestingly enough, California is a right to work state, and yet we have one of the most pernicious and overpaid prison guards' unions in the entire country. It's to the point now where there are over 100,000 applicants every year for new prison guards, for less than 300 openings each year, because the job pays better than most graduate degrees after only a few years on the job and requires only a 3 month training course with no higher prerequisite qualification than a high school diploma. For example, the highest paid employee in the State of California is a prison surgeon who earns over $700,000 per year. There's just one problem; he's so incompetent that he lost his license to actually perform surgeries due to malpractice. But that's not even the best part. They cannot fire this guy because the employment review board (ever heard of one of those in the private sector?) says that while his medical skills are poor, he wasn't negligent so they have to keep him on so that he can shuffle papers (he doesn't even see patients anymore). It's insane, but hey that's California for you.
You don't seem to understand a 'pension'. The risk is assumed by the *employer*, not the employee
Except that they don't really assume much risk because pension promises are regularly burned in bankruptcy court during Chapter 11 restructurings. The airlines have done it on multiple occasions, United comes to mind, and of course the automakers did it (except that the UAW managed to pin that one on the taxpayers with the bailout). Smart lawyers and private equity buyout groups have turned pension promises, which are rare outside government agencies now in the US anyway, into speed bumps which they drive over at full speed in their legal hummers.
Pensions don't offer great returns, it's pretty low, much like Social Security returns are low. It's meant and designed to be 'safe' rather than risk oriented. It's a pretty safe system unless the company isn't putting the money in that they are supposed to when they are supposed to.
The public employee unions in California (especially the prison guards) and in other states have, through political payola and corruption, raised their pension benefits to the point where they substantially outperform (at least on paper) most of the investments available to average investors in the private sector who aren't either especially skillful or wealthy enough to invest in unrestricted securities (aka 'high net worth individuals'). In fact, most of the best returns are reserved for hedge funds and their high net worth clients, courtesy of the SEC and federal regulation which denies these opportunities to ordinary investors "for their own good".
That's where the problem lies...the "Well we're short this year so we'll pay more next year" just keeps happening.
It's not unique to the private sector. The state governments, especially California, have been doing this for years. The joke will be on the pensioners when it comes time to pay though. California is broke and it's credit card is maxed out. If they try to raise taxes enough to pay those pensions, along with all of the other outrageous special interest spending, they will drive what few businesses remain out of state. In fact, California business regulations are already so ass-backwards and stupid that Nevada, Texas and Oregon all have state departments dedicated to luring California businesses, successfully in most cases, to relocate.
I've actually worked at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (gov agency) that's tasked with insuring pensions offered by companies. It's not a pretty site, they are all vastly under funded.
Then you of all people should now how easily these "promises", which were often made in bad faith to begin with, are burned in bankruptcy and dumped onto the PBGC at 30 cents on the dollar (or less). As for public pensions which are "legally mandated" to be paid by taxpayers; that's a political hot potato if ever there was one. The taxpayers won't stand for government employees getting every penny promised to them with no "haircuts"; especially not after what happened to many ex-homeowners and their 401ks during the Great Recession.
It doesn't have to be that way, the company and the employees signed an agreement. The companies aren't living up to that agreement.
Oh look an "agreement", how quaint. To quote Achilles from the Illiad, "There are no binding oaths between lions and men".
At the end of the day, promises are made to be broken. The only thing that matters anymore in our society, the only thing that protects, is ownership of real assets.
Seriously, what would you do if your employer raided your 401k to pay it's bills?
Well, first off they can't because I own the account. Pensions are not always set up as legally separate trusts and so become vulnerable to broken promises. However, pensions also promise relatively high rates of return for what people once perceived (incorrectly) to be essentially zero risk. In a 401k or any other real investment the value goes up and down depending upon the actual or likely future value of the assets contained within it. My point is this: there's risk in any investment, even a "safe" pension and people must learn to accept that. If they don't like that, let them opt out and invest (or not) their own money as they please.
You'd demand serious benefits and pay to cover the fact that your employer is stealing from you.
You can "demand" whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you're in a position to receive it. As I said previously, there is no way that California taxpayers are going to make state pensioners whole for the difference between what's in their pensions accounts and what was "promised" to them. If they try to raise taxes, then there will be another tax revolt ala Proposition 13 to keep the government's hands out of our pockets. Investors won't loan more money to California so that it can continue paying outsized pensions to retired state employees or they will demand punitive interest rates. California has long been on the road towards a massive collision with reality and we are in the first stages already. Mark my words, if it comes down to a choice between paying the bond holders, paying the welfare or paying the pensioners, the pensioners are going to loose that fight and it will be cold day in hell before the taxpayers shell out for those state employee pensions. California state employees and teachers are going to take an investment haircut, just like the rest of us did in our retirement accounts, unless their pension fund managers outperform Warren Buffet himself. So, the only question will be how much less will pensioners get? I cannot say that I will be to sorry to see fewer "public pension millionaires".
Because this Chinese are willing to piss in their own pool when it comes to environmental regulation and preservation. When you don't care about poisoning your population and ruining your water, air and land, you can undercut anyone who is unwilling to follow that path; all other things (i.e. technology level) being equal.
A simple manual valve wheel outside the secure area will take care of this, with far fewer potential fail points.
Yes, but then we would have to hire an additional unionized state employee, with full benefits, just to turn the valve when told to do so. You may laugh, but the various prison guard unions would almost certainly insist that turning the valve is not part of their job description and requires an additional full time staff member who's job description includes this duty. Perhaps now you begin to understand the appeal of an automated system, even a complicated one, from the standpoint of cash-strapped governments and those who are ultimately footing the bill (i.e. the taxpayers).
Government used to pay less than private industry... now it pays about the same, but with better benefits and job security
Here in California, government jobs not only pay better but have superior benefits; rivaling even the US Government. For example, there are at least several hundred pensioners, retired from state employment, here in California that collect more the $250,000 per year in pension benefits, not including health care which further increases the value of the pension, and pensions of $100,000 and up are not at all uncommon. The vaunted job security has been on the decline in recent years, in tandem with California's credit rating, but it still beats the private sector in most comparable occupations. Many state and local governments are contemplating massive tax increases to pay for these unfunded pension obligations, but I doubt that taxpayers will stand for it. Indeed, if they raise taxes here in California to pay for gold plated government pensions while unemployment hovers in the double digits and people continue to loose their homes, they're going to have a revolution on their hands.
If you're asking for logic and reason in our laws then you're not understanding their true purpose. The true purpose of these laws is to create for those in power a means of removing any troublesome person who attempts to stand in their way. It has been said the CP is the root password to the Constitution and indeed there is truth in that. If in doubt, remember what Cardinal Richelieu said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
We're not happy about it. Our customer isn't happy about it. And soon, about a dozen US workers will be added to the jobless pool. Another win for the lawyers and the USPTO.
Your most effective weapon may be getting this more widely covered in the media (i.e. the court of public opinion). Speak with your local papers and see if they would be willing to run a story. If a local paper runs a story then it might be picked up by a national news organization and run in front of an even larger audience. Sometimes public shame and bad PR changes minds at big corporations much more easily than a long and obscure legal battle (which you cannot afford anyway). You may have to go to a conservative news organization, like Fox News, to get this aired though because the broadcast media NBC, ABC and CBS all support President Obama who, along with Joe Bidden, are political allies of the Copyright and Patent industries (i.e. the MAFIAA); so even though this is costing jobs, you will be ignored by any news agency that supports President Obama because of his political ties to those with vested interests in "intellectual Property" law.
None of this should be surprising to any student of economics, but they don't generally teach that in school anymore, except in post secondary education, because that is what suits those in power and their lackeys. They keep the general public ignorant of such things while redirecting their anger into policies which sound good, but actually enrich even further those who benefit from the public ignorance. Those protesting against "corporate greed" and "fat cat bankers" would do better to put down their signs and pick up their economics textbooks so that next time they will not be so easily fooled into supporting their own oppression through misguided government policies.
The best regulations are simple ones, as complexity breeds gaming. Complex regulations also encourage corruption on the government side as well.
And yet those who call themselves "progressive" continue to advocate for ever more intrusive and pervasive regulations in the vain hope that some wonderful utopian society is waiting for them at the end of all the waste, fraud and abuse. Indeed, these are the very sorts of people that P.T Barnum was speaking of when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute". Whenever someone tells me that big government and regulation is the path to prosperity, I know immediately that one of two things is true: they have rocks in their heads OR they have an agenda that involves taking advantage of those who fall into the first category. Government has its place and uses, but at least here in the United States right now we have far far to much of it.
has a PE ratio lower than the S&P 500 average, has YOY profit growth of > 90% and operating margin of about 29%. Luckily the markets they are in have plenty of growth left in them.
The PE has gained 1+ since the discussion started and as you can see from the price; profit growth, operating margin and likely future earnings are already well priced into the stock. If Apple fails to meet expectations, even for just a quarter or two, you could stand to loose substantially. I like Apple. It's a good company and their products are nice, but the price is not attractive at this time (too expensive). IMHO, the analysts underestimate the Android competition and overestimate the growth potential for Apple at a time when the average US consumer (non-luxury) is still tightening the belt. If you want to buy Apple, go ahead, but in my opinion you could receive better compensation for similar or much less risk elsewhere. If you do buy, then at least consider purchasing some puts as insurance against the downside risks if those high earnings targets, which are already well priced in, aren't met.
leaving the real meat of facts in the dumbest computers on the planet is somehow a good thing is just idiotic. Google is not going to link information together for you. You have to put the real meat of information into your head and then only your brain is capable of making connections to create real understanding.
The problem lies with the fact that our brains are very limited as to the number of facts that can be reliably maintained and recalled in our long term memories. Indeed, much of our brain structure is still geared towards the hunter gatherer lifestyle that encompassed all of human history up until about 10,000 years ago or so (relatively recently in the grand scheme of things) when the first groups of people settled down and began the long march towards what we now call civilization (whether or not we actually are civilized is still a matter of some debate or at least it would be if we were civilized, but that's another argument all together). The brain is really good at remembering things that convey a survival advantage, like the fact that large predators sitting in trees didn't get there by accident and represent a dangerous situation RIGHT NOW, while conveniently forgetting the freshman calculus that you haven't needed since you passed lower division maths twenty years ago. The point is that external memory (i.e. the Internet) is a huge advantage compared to the pre-Internet days when knowledge was expensive and difficult to obtain in the breadth and depth that is now available in just a few clicks with Google or (gasp) Bing. Why should I waste precious long term memory on a comparative analysis of Moby Dick and Treasure Island when any number of other facts would be way more useful to my immediate survival in modern society? No, I will leave Moby Dick and Treasure Island to Ishmael and Ben Gunn while I try to plan and save for my retirement years when I might actually get around to reading them; I suspect that they will still be there waiting for me when the time comes.
Yes, but doing a double blind, randomized and sufficiently lengthy study with a statistically significant population would actually cost money and while some of us here on Slashdot might be interested in learning exactly why late night IT workers are overweight, undersexed and tired all of the time; I doubt that anyone else wants to spend a few million to find out. On the other hand, the government has wasted far more than a few millions on even more dubious projects, so if they're going to waste my tax money anyway they might as well waste it on this.
should have picked a term that wasn't already in use if you didn't want there to be confusion.
Confusion is part and parcel of marketing, it's part of their bag of tricks. After all, confused and ill-informed people are much easier to manipulate without being detected and even if they do find out that they've been lied too, there's always another mark.
That may be true, but tech companies also tend to be overbought (at least before they crash). The P/E may look attractive compared to other tech companies, but the downside risk potential in Apple is substantial and it pays no dividend in the meantime. How much more growth can you reasonably expect from Apple in the next year or two? What if Android continues to seize market share in the smartphone market?
Different investors prefer different stock profiles. I generally prefer to buy stocks with P/Es = 10, although I have bought shares with P/Es as much as 25-30 on rare occasions, that have good cashflow, low debt and stable earnings growth potential over the medium to long term. From what I've seen, it's difficult to find these sorts of companies in tech, where fortunes rise and fall quickly and short term market timing can be the difference between making a killing and losing ones' shirt. If you want to invest in Apple, then go ahead; don't let me stop you. I was simply saying that it wasn't the right investment for my portfolio.
If you are being walked out of the building in cuffs, you haven't been convicted yet. In fact you may not even be charged yet. The company can terminate you when you try to come back to work or fail to show up for a few days after you make bail. Either way, it's very unlikely that an at will employee would survive that experience with their job intact unless they were a family member in a family business or another family member had a position of great power and influence in the company.
It isn't like it would put them out of business, but it could shrink the profitability a lot and no company is interested in that.
Take a look at the P/E ratio on AAPL of 16+, analysts' earnings and one (1) year target estimates; not exactly a bargain, considering the risks (Android is both a serious and viable competitor), if you ask me. Plus, if Apple fails to meet expectationsor worse starts missing on quarterly earnings because of Android then look out below because Apple has a long ways to fall, especially given the fact that its meteoric rise in recent years is due in no small part to the fantastically profitable iPhone. If you want to see an example of how quickly the markets and Wall Street can punish a tech company that fails to deliver on expectations, look no further than RIMM which some commentators now refer to as, "wasted research, downward motion". Research in motion is down 63% from its 52 week high; that's brutal if you were a buyer any time between then and now.
I consider myself to be a fairly savvy investor, but the smart phone market changes quarterly and the pace of new handset releases, especially Android phones, is only increasing. There are many unknown variables, including killer apps or features, that are both disruptive and come out of nowhere on a regular basis. This may be good for consumers, but that level of risk and volatility, especially in a narrowly focused company like Apple with a healthy stock premium, is high risk and high stakes for all but the hardiest and best informed investors. I'm not a buyer of Apple, especially at these prices, because (a) the stock is expensive and (b) the risks in a disruptive and unpredictable business, like the smart phone business, with plenty of well informed insiders, are too high. In my opinion, most small investors would be well advised to steer clear of these rocky shoals. Alternatively, the telecoms have come down in price somewhat and all of those smart phone users are still paying $30+ per month, in spite of the jobless recovery, for their data plans.
"At will" for any reason not related to Race, Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, family status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, veteran status
Which is why, if you are terminated, you will almost never learn the real reason. In fact, most companies don't actually fire anymore except under extreme circumstances (i.e. you were perp-walked out of the building in cuffs by the men in suits and sunglasses). If someone is fired then they were "laid off" and the company will do nothing other than to confirm dates of employment to anyone who inquires after the fact. So, one could argue that all of the stringent laws, lawsuits and lawyers have made any actual discrimination both more sophisticated and more entrenched. As long as plausible deniablity is maintained and nobody in management is dumb enough to write anything down related to these policies; the "at will" provisions make any discrimination lawsuit difficult at best and mostly impossible in practice. Indeed, the recent outcome in the Walmart discrimination case serves to reinforce and legitimize these practices.
Slashdot Mirror
(Papers please!)
They actually said please?
Both the United States and the Soviet Union built relatively small warheads for tactical use during the Cold War. For example the United States deployed, for a very brief period of time, the W54 warhead on the jeep or tripod mounted recoilless launcher as the man-portable M-388 Davy Crockett. The warhead was said to have weighed around 75 pounds, so it probably could have been fit into a suitcase; albeit a rather large one. Indeed, the same warhead was also made available for use by special operations forces in the form of a satchel-charge: Special Atomic Demolition Munition. There was also a test of the W54 in an artillery shell format: Upshot Knothole Grable.
None of these weapons ever saw wide deployment for many reasons, including: (1) the weapons were almost as dangerous to their users as they were to any potential enemy because the firing forces would be subjecting themselves to the possibility of contamination by their own fallout or even their own blast effects and (2) because the weapons had to be deployed relatively close to where they were going to be used, due to short ranges, it was possible that they might be captured by the enemy and re-used against us. In the end these weapons were best described a stop-gap measures against a potential massive Soviet ground invasion until something better came along, which it did rather quickly in the form of rapidly advancing missile technology; rendering these sorts of weapons obsolete.
Nothing has changed that makes the US more likely to default.
That depends upon what one means by "default". With the US government, it's not a simple as whether or not it can pay its bills because, by definition, they can always pay their bills...with inflated dollars. So while it's true that the government cannot "default" in the same way that a private business or individual can; they can choose to "repay" their creditors with much less economic value than those creditors expected to receive by handing them ever more worthless dollars. When people in the media and the public talk about the government "defaulting" on its debts they are mostly referring to the later and not so much the former. The US government is eventually going to pull the inflation ripcord to get out from under this. Everyone knows this. If you doubt this, look at the long term prices of hard assets, especially ones that store value, like gold. The prices on those assets are long term up, up, up.
Perhaps they could arrange their shifts so that they aren't both working at the same time when little Bobby finishes the school day? Why must I pay for Bobby's after school program simply to enable his parent's greatest convenience? My parents both worked when I was growing up (my father and mother ran a small business together) and I walked home and did my chores and homework every weekday after school while waiting for my parents to return. It's time for Bobby to suck it up and learn the value of discipline and self-reliance. Of course, that's precisely what the left doesn't want little Bobby to learn.
Lots of lashing out and gnashing-of-teeth from Obama supporters tonight
Anything which reduces spending or even just slows the growth of government, with the possible exception of defense, annoys those on the left because it weakens the bonds of the average person's dependency on the state and by extension their (i.e. the politicos) power over them.
Nobody forces you to believe their ratings; You're free to draw your own conclusions and trade (or not) accordingly. S&P and Moody's offer their opinion concerning the quality of an investment, but ultimately that's all it is; an opinion. This is fraud how? Remember what Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger and other value greats have always advised: avoid investments in businesses that you don't understand.
Interestingly enough, California is a right to work state, and yet we have one of the most pernicious and overpaid prison guards' unions in the entire country. It's to the point now where there are over 100,000 applicants every year for new prison guards, for less than 300 openings each year, because the job pays better than most graduate degrees after only a few years on the job and requires only a 3 month training course with no higher prerequisite qualification than a high school diploma. For example, the highest paid employee in the State of California is a prison surgeon who earns over $700,000 per year. There's just one problem; he's so incompetent that he lost his license to actually perform surgeries due to malpractice. But that's not even the best part. They cannot fire this guy because the employment review board (ever heard of one of those in the private sector?) says that while his medical skills are poor, he wasn't negligent so they have to keep him on so that he can shuffle papers (he doesn't even see patients anymore). It's insane, but hey that's California for you.
You don't seem to understand a 'pension'. The risk is assumed by the *employer*, not the employee
Except that they don't really assume much risk because pension promises are regularly burned in bankruptcy court during Chapter 11 restructurings. The airlines have done it on multiple occasions, United comes to mind, and of course the automakers did it (except that the UAW managed to pin that one on the taxpayers with the bailout). Smart lawyers and private equity buyout groups have turned pension promises, which are rare outside government agencies now in the US anyway, into speed bumps which they drive over at full speed in their legal hummers.
Pensions don't offer great returns, it's pretty low, much like Social Security returns are low. It's meant and designed to be 'safe' rather than risk oriented. It's a pretty safe system unless the company isn't putting the money in that they are supposed to when they are supposed to.
The public employee unions in California (especially the prison guards) and in other states have, through political payola and corruption, raised their pension benefits to the point where they substantially outperform (at least on paper) most of the investments available to average investors in the private sector who aren't either especially skillful or wealthy enough to invest in unrestricted securities (aka 'high net worth individuals'). In fact, most of the best returns are reserved for hedge funds and their high net worth clients, courtesy of the SEC and federal regulation which denies these opportunities to ordinary investors "for their own good".
That's where the problem lies...the "Well we're short this year so we'll pay more next year" just keeps happening.
It's not unique to the private sector. The state governments, especially California, have been doing this for years. The joke will be on the pensioners when it comes time to pay though. California is broke and it's credit card is maxed out. If they try to raise taxes enough to pay those pensions, along with all of the other outrageous special interest spending, they will drive what few businesses remain out of state. In fact, California business regulations are already so ass-backwards and stupid that Nevada, Texas and Oregon all have state departments dedicated to luring California businesses, successfully in most cases, to relocate.
I've actually worked at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (gov agency) that's tasked with insuring pensions offered by companies. It's not a pretty site, they are all vastly under funded.
Then you of all people should now how easily these "promises", which were often made in bad faith to begin with, are burned in bankruptcy and dumped onto the PBGC at 30 cents on the dollar (or less). As for public pensions which are "legally mandated" to be paid by taxpayers; that's a political hot potato if ever there was one. The taxpayers won't stand for government employees getting every penny promised to them with no "haircuts"; especially not after what happened to many ex-homeowners and their 401ks during the Great Recession.
It doesn't have to be that way, the company and the employees signed an agreement. The companies aren't living up to that agreement.
Oh look an "agreement", how quaint. To quote Achilles from the Illiad, "There are no binding oaths between lions and men".
At the end of the day, promises are made to be broken. The only thing that matters anymore in our society, the only thing that protects, is ownership of real assets.
Seriously, what would you do if your employer raided your 401k to pay it's bills?
Well, first off they can't because I own the account. Pensions are not always set up as legally separate trusts and so become vulnerable to broken promises. However, pensions also promise relatively high rates of return for what people once perceived (incorrectly) to be essentially zero risk. In a 401k or any other real investment the value goes up and down depending upon the actual or likely future value of the assets contained within it. My point is this: there's risk in any investment, even a "safe" pension and people must learn to accept that . If they don't like that, let them opt out and invest (or not) their own money as they please.
You'd demand serious benefits and pay to cover the fact that your employer is stealing from you.
You can "demand" whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you're in a position to receive it. As I said previously, there is no way that California taxpayers are going to make state pensioners whole for the difference between what's in their pensions accounts and what was "promised" to them. If they try to raise taxes, then there will be another tax revolt ala Proposition 13 to keep the government's hands out of our pockets. Investors won't loan more money to California so that it can continue paying outsized pensions to retired state employees or they will demand punitive interest rates. California has long been on the road towards a massive collision with reality and we are in the first stages already. Mark my words, if it comes down to a choice between paying the bond holders, paying the welfare or paying the pensioners, the pensioners are going to loose that fight and it will be cold day in hell before the taxpayers shell out for those state employee pensions. California state employees and teachers are going to take an investment haircut, just like the rest of us did in our retirement accounts, unless their pension fund managers outperform Warren Buffet himself. So, the only question will be how much less will pensioners get? I cannot say that I will be to sorry to see fewer "public pension millionaires".
Showdown brewing over CA state employee pensions
Because this Chinese are willing to piss in their own pool when it comes to environmental regulation and preservation. When you don't care about poisoning your population and ruining your water, air and land, you can undercut anyone who is unwilling to follow that path; all other things (i.e. technology level) being equal.
A simple manual valve wheel outside the secure area will take care of this, with far fewer potential fail points.
Yes, but then we would have to hire an additional unionized state employee, with full benefits, just to turn the valve when told to do so. You may laugh, but the various prison guard unions would almost certainly insist that turning the valve is not part of their job description and requires an additional full time staff member who's job description includes this duty. Perhaps now you begin to understand the appeal of an automated system, even a complicated one, from the standpoint of cash-strapped governments and those who are ultimately footing the bill (i.e. the taxpayers).
Government used to pay less than private industry... now it pays about the same, but with better benefits and job security
Here in California, government jobs not only pay better but have superior benefits; rivaling even the US Government. For example, there are at least several hundred pensioners, retired from state employment, here in California that collect more the $250,000 per year in pension benefits, not including health care which further increases the value of the pension, and pensions of $100,000 and up are not at all uncommon. The vaunted job security has been on the decline in recent years, in tandem with California's credit rating, but it still beats the private sector in most comparable occupations. Many state and local governments are contemplating massive tax increases to pay for these unfunded pension obligations, but I doubt that taxpayers will stand for it. Indeed, if they raise taxes here in California to pay for gold plated government pensions while unemployment hovers in the double digits and people continue to loose their homes, they're going to have a revolution on their hands.
If you're asking for logic and reason in our laws then you're not understanding their true purpose. The true purpose of these laws is to create for those in power a means of removing any troublesome person who attempts to stand in their way. It has been said the CP is the root password to the Constitution and indeed there is truth in that. If in doubt, remember what Cardinal Richelieu said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
We're not happy about it. Our customer isn't happy about it. And soon, about a dozen US workers will be added to the jobless pool. Another win for the lawyers and the USPTO.
Your most effective weapon may be getting this more widely covered in the media (i.e. the court of public opinion). Speak with your local papers and see if they would be willing to run a story. If a local paper runs a story then it might be picked up by a national news organization and run in front of an even larger audience. Sometimes public shame and bad PR changes minds at big corporations much more easily than a long and obscure legal battle (which you cannot afford anyway). You may have to go to a conservative news organization, like Fox News, to get this aired though because the broadcast media NBC, ABC and CBS all support President Obama who, along with Joe Bidden, are political allies of the Copyright and Patent industries (i.e. the MAFIAA); so even though this is costing jobs, you will be ignored by any news agency that supports President Obama because of his political ties to those with vested interests in "intellectual Property" law.
None of this should be surprising to any student of economics, but they don't generally teach that in school anymore, except in post secondary education, because that is what suits those in power and their lackeys. They keep the general public ignorant of such things while redirecting their anger into policies which sound good, but actually enrich even further those who benefit from the public ignorance. Those protesting against "corporate greed" and "fat cat bankers" would do better to put down their signs and pick up their economics textbooks so that next time they will not be so easily fooled into supporting their own oppression through misguided government policies.
The best regulations are simple ones, as complexity breeds gaming. Complex regulations also encourage corruption on the government side as well.
And yet those who call themselves "progressive" continue to advocate for ever more intrusive and pervasive regulations in the vain hope that some wonderful utopian society is waiting for them at the end of all the waste, fraud and abuse. Indeed, these are the very sorts of people that P.T Barnum was speaking of when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute". Whenever someone tells me that big government and regulation is the path to prosperity, I know immediately that one of two things is true: they have rocks in their heads OR they have an agenda that involves taking advantage of those who fall into the first category. Government has its place and uses, but at least here in the United States right now we have far far to much of it.
has a PE ratio lower than the S&P 500 average, has YOY profit growth of > 90% and operating margin of about 29%. Luckily the markets they are in have plenty of growth left in them.
The PE has gained 1+ since the discussion started and as you can see from the price; profit growth, operating margin and likely future earnings are already well priced into the stock. If Apple fails to meet expectations, even for just a quarter or two, you could stand to loose substantially. I like Apple. It's a good company and their products are nice, but the price is not attractive at this time (too expensive). IMHO, the analysts underestimate the Android competition and overestimate the growth potential for Apple at a time when the average US consumer (non-luxury) is still tightening the belt. If you want to buy Apple, go ahead, but in my opinion you could receive better compensation for similar or much less risk elsewhere. If you do buy, then at least consider purchasing some puts as insurance against the downside risks if those high earnings targets, which are already well priced in, aren't met.
leaving the real meat of facts in the dumbest computers on the planet is somehow a good thing is just idiotic. Google is not going to link information together for you. You have to put the real meat of information into your head and then only your brain is capable of making connections to create real understanding.
The problem lies with the fact that our brains are very limited as to the number of facts that can be reliably maintained and recalled in our long term memories. Indeed, much of our brain structure is still geared towards the hunter gatherer lifestyle that encompassed all of human history up until about 10,000 years ago or so (relatively recently in the grand scheme of things) when the first groups of people settled down and began the long march towards what we now call civilization (whether or not we actually are civilized is still a matter of some debate or at least it would be if we were civilized, but that's another argument all together). The brain is really good at remembering things that convey a survival advantage, like the fact that large predators sitting in trees didn't get there by accident and represent a dangerous situation RIGHT NOW, while conveniently forgetting the freshman calculus that you haven't needed since you passed lower division maths twenty years ago. The point is that external memory (i.e. the Internet) is a huge advantage compared to the pre-Internet days when knowledge was expensive and difficult to obtain in the breadth and depth that is now available in just a few clicks with Google or (gasp) Bing. Why should I waste precious long term memory on a comparative analysis of Moby Dick and Treasure Island when any number of other facts would be way more useful to my immediate survival in modern society? No, I will leave Moby Dick and Treasure Island to Ishmael and Ben Gunn while I try to plan and save for my retirement years when I might actually get around to reading them; I suspect that they will still be there waiting for me when the time comes.
What a terrible article and study.
Yes, but doing a double blind, randomized and sufficiently lengthy study with a statistically significant population would actually cost money and while some of us here on Slashdot might be interested in learning exactly why late night IT workers are overweight, undersexed and tired all of the time; I doubt that anyone else wants to spend a few million to find out. On the other hand, the government has wasted far more than a few millions on even more dubious projects, so if they're going to waste my tax money anyway they might as well waste it on this.
should have picked a term that wasn't already in use if you didn't want there to be confusion.
Confusion is part and parcel of marketing, it's part of their bag of tricks. After all, confused and ill-informed people are much easier to manipulate without being detected and even if they do find out that they've been lied too, there's always another mark.
That may be true, but tech companies also tend to be overbought (at least before they crash). The P/E may look attractive compared to other tech companies, but the downside risk potential in Apple is substantial and it pays no dividend in the meantime. How much more growth can you reasonably expect from Apple in the next year or two? What if Android continues to seize market share in the smartphone market?
Different investors prefer different stock profiles. I generally prefer to buy stocks with P/Es = 10, although I have bought shares with P/Es as much as 25-30 on rare occasions, that have good cashflow, low debt and stable earnings growth potential over the medium to long term. From what I've seen, it's difficult to find these sorts of companies in tech, where fortunes rise and fall quickly and short term market timing can be the difference between making a killing and losing ones' shirt. If you want to invest in Apple, then go ahead; don't let me stop you. I was simply saying that it wasn't the right investment for my portfolio.
If you are being walked out of the building in cuffs, you haven't been convicted yet. In fact you may not even be charged yet. The company can terminate you when you try to come back to work or fail to show up for a few days after you make bail. Either way, it's very unlikely that an at will employee would survive that experience with their job intact unless they were a family member in a family business or another family member had a position of great power and influence in the company.
It isn't like it would put them out of business, but it could shrink the profitability a lot and no company is interested in that.
Take a look at the P/E ratio on AAPL of 16+, analysts' earnings and one (1) year target estimates; not exactly a bargain, considering the risks (Android is both a serious and viable competitor), if you ask me. Plus, if Apple fails to meet expectationsor worse starts missing on quarterly earnings because of Android then look out below because Apple has a long ways to fall, especially given the fact that its meteoric rise in recent years is due in no small part to the fantastically profitable iPhone. If you want to see an example of how quickly the markets and Wall Street can punish a tech company that fails to deliver on expectations, look no further than RIMM which some commentators now refer to as, "wasted research, downward motion". Research in motion is down 63% from its 52 week high; that's brutal if you were a buyer any time between then and now.
I consider myself to be a fairly savvy investor, but the smart phone market changes quarterly and the pace of new handset releases, especially Android phones, is only increasing. There are many unknown variables, including killer apps or features, that are both disruptive and come out of nowhere on a regular basis. This may be good for consumers, but that level of risk and volatility, especially in a narrowly focused company like Apple with a healthy stock premium, is high risk and high stakes for all but the hardiest and best informed investors. I'm not a buyer of Apple, especially at these prices, because (a) the stock is expensive and (b) the risks in a disruptive and unpredictable business, like the smart phone business, with plenty of well informed insiders, are too high. In my opinion, most small investors would be well advised to steer clear of these rocky shoals. Alternatively, the telecoms have come down in price somewhat and all of those smart phone users are still paying $30+ per month, in spite of the jobless recovery, for their data plans.
"At will" for any reason not related to Race, Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, family status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, veteran status
Which is why, if you are terminated, you will almost never learn the real reason. In fact, most companies don't actually fire anymore except under extreme circumstances (i.e. you were perp-walked out of the building in cuffs by the men in suits and sunglasses). If someone is fired then they were "laid off" and the company will do nothing other than to confirm dates of employment to anyone who inquires after the fact. So, one could argue that all of the stringent laws, lawsuits and lawyers have made any actual discrimination both more sophisticated and more entrenched. As long as plausible deniablity is maintained and nobody in management is dumb enough to write anything down related to these policies; the "at will" provisions make any discrimination lawsuit difficult at best and mostly impossible in practice. Indeed, the recent outcome in the Walmart discrimination case serves to reinforce and legitimize these practices.