No, not even close. There were handfuls of gopher and FTP sites prior to WWW. However, once http got rolling, things increased exponentially. By 1997, we were at the point you describe where there was a panoply of information out there. However, in 1991-1995, it was pretty much all nerds doing nerd things (and we liked it that way!). Usenet was big at this time because it was a natural extension of the BBS days....
Here is a good link for you that will provide some nostalgia.
Yes, dial-up internet. Can't speak for others but I was using SLIP and a dial-up connection in the fall of 1991. Not to a BBS/AOL/Compusuck, rather, to the "internet". WWW didn't even exist and we thought Gopher was about the coolest thing since sliced bread.....
You are correct though that "the internet" didn't really go mainstream until later....1994 or 1995. Tappan worm? I think you mean the Morris worm. They are the same thing.
You forgot some.
self determination and social mobility: advantage US.
Europe does a lot of things right and a LOT of things wrong. To pretend it is the panacea is disingenuous. The Declaration of Independence is a good read if you want to understand some of different philosophies....
If you think the rich run the show in the USA, wait until you see the aristrocracy in Europe. With 1000 year advantage, they make the US look like a bunch of pikers. Or did you forget that part as well?
Well definitely don't automate it if you want to stay an hourly employee.
There may be legitimate reasons for deciding not to automate the task but getting to work more hours by purposefully choosing the least optimal way to get things done isn't one of them. How about instead, you automate it and if it works, then ask or find something else valuable to do.
Jon Stewart? Oh come on....he didn't start that saying. J Paul Getty did, who at one point, was the richest man in the US. Saddened but not surprised you got modded +5 for that drivel.....
See here. Or any one of the other dozen websites that say the same thing. It's a very well known quote, my friend and it's not typically attributed to Jon Stewart.
The stock was priced for growth a decade ago and is now priced for value.
So let me get this right: the multiple compresses (P/E goes down) and you explain it away by saying they were a growth stock 10 years ago but now they are a value stock? Sir, there is a word for that in the financial industry. It's called a value trap and under no conditions is it a good thing.
I think the special $3.00/sh dividend Microsoft paid back in 2004 (?) is throwing everyone off. The normal yield for MSFT has been around 2-3%. However, in that one year - 2004, I think - they had a one-time $3.00 dividend. It stands out in my mind because I sold my MSFT stock 2 days later and that was a smart move to take my money and run. At no time has MSFT ever had a yield above 3%, aside from that one year.
MSFT is a dog. Has been since 2001. From a stock standpoint, there are MUCH better dividend plays if you are looking for stable dividends: MO, KFT, T, VZ, etc, etc
Go back and reread the article and consider where the information in the article came from. Hint: not a regulatory agency, not a scientific/academic body, not a governmental report, etc.
You should also re-read my post as my point still stands: *NO* regulatory agency, body, or otherwise has indicated fracking causes or correlates to earthquakes. Your BBC article doesn't dispute that.
Ahhh, good point. Different point from the OP but still a good point. We agree that industry needs to dispose of the waste properly and that does not include deep injection back into the earth.
So what is the budget going to? None of us deny that the EPA is getting more resources now than it was in say, 1988. So where are those resources going, if what you say is true?
First of all, the "show me state" is Missouri you goofball. Don't you know that Oklahoma is just OK? It's where the wind comes sweeping down the plains....
Since Oklahoma has been an oil/gas player for a long time, I'd argue that it has had more 3D seismic graphing than any other state, sans Texas. I am quite sure the radar images you are asking for are "out there", although I highly doubt you will be given access to them (because they are privately owned).
Oh, and fracking isn't drilling holes to get the natty gas. Fracking is shorthand for Hydraulic Fracturing. I will assume you know how to google from here....
If your data is good and you did things right, there is no anti-you crowd to worry about. If your data is trying to back up a preset agenda instead of going where the evidence takes you.....well then you should expect strong resistance from others who disagree with your findings.
This isn't tobacco. Comparisons to the tobacco industry are not warranted. The ASME and API would both be more than happy to accept and publish your work if you find evidence that supports or challenges what they already know. Petroleum and Petro engineering have a solid 100 year history of advancements so I am going to warn you that the task ahead is not easy. However, if you are right and have evidence to back it up, you can pretty much write your own ticket to any career you desire. And the petro industry will be the first ones on your doorstep throwing large amounts of money at you so you can figure out more stuff.
The only people who worry about the "anti-you" crowd are those who don't know what they are talking about.
Agreed. Bakken Shale is very exciting and that area of the world is a perfect "test bed" for this hypothesis. The "interference" is negligible so a good set of data could be generated fairly easily -- and it would have meaning.
Sidenote: North Dakota is printing more millionaires (by count) than anywhere else in the world right now. Yes, including China.
The EPA has been all but dismantled by the last few administrations.
Are you serious? I about choked when I read your post. If anything, the EPA has only INCREASED it's power over the last 30 years. Here, look for yourself at the budget numbers. Note, this doesn't even consider the increased regulatory power they have by issuing new rules, edicts, etc.
Methinks you are a little too mired in the day to day of politics to notice but the EPA has been growing and getting more powerful over the last 3 decades. Like all of government.....
Not only do I live in Oklahoma but my work bumps up against the energy/hydrocarbon industry. This is a subject that I know quite a bit about, in fact....
The answer is: No, No, and No.
For forever, Oklahoma has had small earthquakes like this. It is not uncommon as we sit on the Arkoma plate (little known fact: The Arbuckle mountains were the largest in the world....about 130 million yrs ago). I remember quakes as far back as I can remember and I can even remember the dumb local news outlets mistaking a B52 landing at night for yet another earthquake (circa 1991 or so). This is not a news story, rather, it is an opportunity for the anti-fracking crowd to push its agenda when the opportunity is ripe. Whether it has any basis in reality is quite a different question...
The quakes were centered almost in the middle of the state. Unfortunately for the anti-fracking crowd, all of the fracking in the state is going on in the Woodford Shale, which is South / Southwest of where the quakes occured (by a lot). While earthquakes being caused by fracking cater to our common senses, there just isn't ANY evidence that the two are linked. And I mean in that statistical "causation" way. *NO* regulatory agency, body, or otherwise has indicated otherwise.
Additionally, the Woodford shale deposit has been in active development for many many years. Fracking didn't just start there a few years ago. Try a decade or more.
While I never say never, I will only say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it's an extraordinary claim to suggest our fracking is starting earthquakes here in Oklahoma.
Corporations are not "persons" nor should they have ever been given that status. They are a "legal entity" that does NOT have human rights, and when courts give equal treatment to a corporation to that of a citizen or person, they have diluted our natural rights as humans, and diminished Liberty in the process.
They have only been given that status with respect to ONE right - freedom of speech. While you state they are not the same your implication is that they are similar enough to dilute our natural right as human beings, when legally, that is not even close to the truth. Only in this one area, are the rights overlapping and the same and that's not a fair fight because you don't have an FTC monitoring what you can and can't say (or FCC, or FDA, or ). In every other area (ALL OF THEM), Corps are treated differently than people.
When a company gets the backing of government, it becomes a predatory company, without accountability, because the government who is supposed to be watching it is motivated to make it succeed.
This. It needs to be said and repeated on/. a lot because there are a lot of thick skulls here who keep wanting to debate this. The car companies, "Green" companies, the calls to nationalize banking, etc, etc.
Dear Bill,
Thank you for your comments and concerns but we got this, thanks.
P.S. Please keep sending the money though
Sincerely Yours,
The Teachers Unions
Sad, but this has been the response for a looooong time now and as my good man Bob Dylan says.....the times they are a changin'
Every stage the money is legally transferred ownership, the money gets taxed. This is normal.
Full stop. If this is what you believe then there isn't much point in carrying on. It is not normal. It is imposed by government, which is which is why our founders went to great lengths to restrain taxes. Remember the whole taxation without representation thing? Your answer is exactly what they were talking about - the idea that government should tax ALL activity.
Many people recognize that, since corporations are owned by people, levying both and income tax AND a corporate profit tax is redundant. It *is* double taxation and it is fundamentally unfair, no matter how much you hate corporations or their legal status.
Because corporations are owned by actual people and those people ALREADY pay taxes on that money at the individual level whether through income taxes, capital gains, or dividend taxes. When you receive money from a corporation, no matter what kind (wage, dividend, contracting, capital gain or whatever) --- that money is TAXED when you go to pay your income taxes. It is YOU paying the tax as an individual citizen.
The problem here is that corporations are taxed on their profits. Well, the profits are also where dividends (and capital gains) come from -- so when you levy a tax on corporate profits (that will eventually be paid to shareholders as dividends), then you are double taxing that money. Taxes are levied once at the corporate profit level and then again when the profits are distributed as dividends.
THAT is the issue and that is why people get all worked up about corporate taxes. It is not a dishonest talking point. It is a legitimate question about fairness and double taxation.
Really? That tripped you up? Well, had you actually been in an MBA level class instead of just taking a test, you'd have learned the difference between a tax rate and effective taxes. Hint: it has to do with tax deductions and tax credits
You don't need cognitive dissonance to understand why a corporation who's tax rate is 35% only pays 7%. You just need to read a little bit and understand how the tax system works at the most basic level.
Once you understand why it is the way it is, then you can start to form opinions about how to fix it (if you think it's broken).
When I first read your post, I honestly wondered which party you are talking about. After further consideration.....I have the same question. Who are you talking about?
I agree with the OP. Both sides are full of it. To pretend that one side is "better" than another only furthers my point. The repubs dismissal of climate change is no worse that the dems idea that we can tax everything to infinity and "create jobs" through the use of unemployment benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not even close. There were handfuls of gopher and FTP sites prior to WWW. However, once http got rolling, things increased exponentially. By 1997, we were at the point you describe where there was a panoply of information out there. However, in 1991-1995, it was pretty much all nerds doing nerd things (and we liked it that way!). Usenet was big at this time because it was a natural extension of the BBS days....
Here is a good link for you that will provide some nostalgia.
Yes, dial-up internet. Can't speak for others but I was using SLIP and a dial-up connection in the fall of 1991. Not to a BBS/AOL/Compusuck, rather, to the "internet". WWW didn't even exist and we thought Gopher was about the coolest thing since sliced bread.....
You are correct though that "the internet" didn't really go mainstream until later....1994 or 1995. Tappan worm? I think you mean the Morris worm. They are the same thing.
You forgot some.
self determination and social mobility: advantage US.
Europe does a lot of things right and a LOT of things wrong. To pretend it is the panacea is disingenuous. The Declaration of Independence is a good read if you want to understand some of different philosophies....
If you think the rich run the show in the USA, wait until you see the aristrocracy in Europe. With 1000 year advantage, they make the US look like a bunch of pikers. Or did you forget that part as well?
Well definitely don't automate it if you want to stay an hourly employee.
There may be legitimate reasons for deciding not to automate the task but getting to work more hours by purposefully choosing the least optimal way to get things done isn't one of them. How about instead, you automate it and if it works, then ask or find something else valuable to do.
Summary: "We will make the decisions for you, your industry and your company because we know how things work better than you."
Funny, there is a lot of this kind of thinking going around these days....
Jon Stewart? Oh come on....he didn't start that saying. J Paul Getty did, who at one point, was the richest man in the US. Saddened but not surprised you got modded +5 for that drivel.....
See here. Or any one of the other dozen websites that say the same thing. It's a very well known quote, my friend and it's not typically attributed to Jon Stewart.
The stock was priced for growth a decade ago and is now priced for value.
So let me get this right: the multiple compresses (P/E goes down) and you explain it away by saying they were a growth stock 10 years ago but now they are a value stock? Sir, there is a word for that in the financial industry. It's called a value trap and under no conditions is it a good thing.
I think the special $3.00/sh dividend Microsoft paid back in 2004 (?) is throwing everyone off. The normal yield for MSFT has been around 2-3%. However, in that one year - 2004, I think - they had a one-time $3.00 dividend. It stands out in my mind because I sold my MSFT stock 2 days later and that was a smart move to take my money and run. At no time has MSFT ever had a yield above 3%, aside from that one year.
MSFT is a dog. Has been since 2001. From a stock standpoint, there are MUCH better dividend plays if you are looking for stable dividends: MO, KFT, T, VZ, etc, etc
-1 for reading comprehension.
Go back and reread the article and consider where the information in the article came from. Hint: not a regulatory agency, not a scientific/academic body, not a governmental report, etc.
You should also re-read my post as my point still stands: *NO* regulatory agency, body, or otherwise has indicated fracking causes or correlates to earthquakes. Your BBC article doesn't dispute that.
Ahhh, good point. Different point from the OP but still a good point. We agree that industry needs to dispose of the waste properly and that does not include deep injection back into the earth.
So what is the budget going to? None of us deny that the EPA is getting more resources now than it was in say, 1988. So where are those resources going, if what you say is true?
First of all, the "show me state" is Missouri you goofball. Don't you know that Oklahoma is just OK? It's where the wind comes sweeping down the plains....
Since Oklahoma has been an oil/gas player for a long time, I'd argue that it has had more 3D seismic graphing than any other state, sans Texas. I am quite sure the radar images you are asking for are "out there", although I highly doubt you will be given access to them (because they are privately owned).
Oh, and fracking isn't drilling holes to get the natty gas. Fracking is shorthand for Hydraulic Fracturing. I will assume you know how to google from here....
Exactly the same.....but different.
Or did you miss the part about deep well injection of water not being the same thing as hydraulic fracturing (aka: fracking)? NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
Not a textbook case, except to those easily confused by big words that look like they might be related. That and their shared hatred of hydrocarbons.
If your data is good and you did things right, there is no anti-you crowd to worry about. If your data is trying to back up a preset agenda instead of going where the evidence takes you.....well then you should expect strong resistance from others who disagree with your findings.
This isn't tobacco. Comparisons to the tobacco industry are not warranted. The ASME and API would both be more than happy to accept and publish your work if you find evidence that supports or challenges what they already know. Petroleum and Petro engineering have a solid 100 year history of advancements so I am going to warn you that the task ahead is not easy. However, if you are right and have evidence to back it up, you can pretty much write your own ticket to any career you desire. And the petro industry will be the first ones on your doorstep throwing large amounts of money at you so you can figure out more stuff.
The only people who worry about the "anti-you" crowd are those who don't know what they are talking about.
Agreed. Bakken Shale is very exciting and that area of the world is a perfect "test bed" for this hypothesis. The "interference" is negligible so a good set of data could be generated fairly easily -- and it would have meaning.
Sidenote: North Dakota is printing more millionaires (by count) than anywhere else in the world right now. Yes, including China.
The EPA has been all but dismantled by the last few administrations.
Are you serious? I about choked when I read your post. If anything, the EPA has only INCREASED it's power over the last 30 years. Here, look for yourself at the budget numbers. Note, this doesn't even consider the increased regulatory power they have by issuing new rules, edicts, etc.
Methinks you are a little too mired in the day to day of politics to notice but the EPA has been growing and getting more powerful over the last 3 decades. Like all of government.....
Not only do I live in Oklahoma but my work bumps up against the energy/hydrocarbon industry. This is a subject that I know quite a bit about, in fact....
The answer is: No, No, and No.
For forever, Oklahoma has had small earthquakes like this. It is not uncommon as we sit on the Arkoma plate (little known fact: The Arbuckle mountains were the largest in the world....about 130 million yrs ago). I remember quakes as far back as I can remember and I can even remember the dumb local news outlets mistaking a B52 landing at night for yet another earthquake (circa 1991 or so). This is not a news story, rather, it is an opportunity for the anti-fracking crowd to push its agenda when the opportunity is ripe. Whether it has any basis in reality is quite a different question...
The quakes were centered almost in the middle of the state. Unfortunately for the anti-fracking crowd, all of the fracking in the state is going on in the Woodford Shale, which is South / Southwest of where the quakes occured (by a lot). While earthquakes being caused by fracking cater to our common senses, there just isn't ANY evidence that the two are linked. And I mean in that statistical "causation" way. *NO* regulatory agency, body, or otherwise has indicated otherwise.
Additionally, the Woodford shale deposit has been in active development for many many years. Fracking didn't just start there a few years ago. Try a decade or more.
While I never say never, I will only say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it's an extraordinary claim to suggest our fracking is starting earthquakes here in Oklahoma.
Corporations are not "persons" nor should they have ever been given that status. They are a "legal entity" that does NOT have human rights, and when courts give equal treatment to a corporation to that of a citizen or person, they have diluted our natural rights as humans, and diminished Liberty in the process.
They have only been given that status with respect to ONE right - freedom of speech. While you state they are not the same your implication is that they are similar enough to dilute our natural right as human beings, when legally, that is not even close to the truth. Only in this one area, are the rights overlapping and the same and that's not a fair fight because you don't have an FTC monitoring what you can and can't say (or FCC, or FDA, or ). In every other area (ALL OF THEM), Corps are treated differently than people.
So you're right....
When a company gets the backing of government, it becomes a predatory company, without accountability, because the government who is supposed to be watching it is motivated to make it succeed.
/. a lot because there are a lot of thick skulls here who keep wanting to debate this. The car companies, "Green" companies, the calls to nationalize banking, etc, etc.
This. It needs to be said and repeated on
Dear Bill,
Thank you for your comments and concerns but we got this, thanks.
P.S. Please keep sending the money though
Sincerely Yours,
The Teachers Unions
Sad, but this has been the response for a looooong time now and as my good man Bob Dylan says.....the times they are a changin'
Every stage the money is legally transferred ownership, the money gets taxed. This is normal.
Full stop. If this is what you believe then there isn't much point in carrying on. It is not normal. It is imposed by government, which is which is why our founders went to great lengths to restrain taxes. Remember the whole taxation without representation thing? Your answer is exactly what they were talking about - the idea that government should tax ALL activity.
Many people recognize that, since corporations are owned by people, levying both and income tax AND a corporate profit tax is redundant. It *is* double taxation and it is fundamentally unfair, no matter how much you hate corporations or their legal status.
Because corporations are owned by actual people and those people ALREADY pay taxes on that money at the individual level whether through income taxes, capital gains, or dividend taxes. When you receive money from a corporation, no matter what kind (wage, dividend, contracting, capital gain or whatever) --- that money is TAXED when you go to pay your income taxes. It is YOU paying the tax as an individual citizen.
The problem here is that corporations are taxed on their profits. Well, the profits are also where dividends (and capital gains) come from -- so when you levy a tax on corporate profits (that will eventually be paid to shareholders as dividends), then you are double taxing that money. Taxes are levied once at the corporate profit level and then again when the profits are distributed as dividends.
THAT is the issue and that is why people get all worked up about corporate taxes. It is not a dishonest talking point. It is a legitimate question about fairness and double taxation.
Really? That tripped you up? Well, had you actually been in an MBA level class instead of just taking a test, you'd have learned the difference between a tax rate and effective taxes. Hint: it has to do with tax deductions and tax credits
You don't need cognitive dissonance to understand why a corporation who's tax rate is 35% only pays 7%. You just need to read a little bit and understand how the tax system works at the most basic level.
Once you understand why it is the way it is, then you can start to form opinions about how to fix it (if you think it's broken).
When I first read your post, I honestly wondered which party you are talking about. After further consideration.....I have the same question. Who are you talking about?
I agree with the OP. Both sides are full of it. To pretend that one side is "better" than another only furthers my point. The repubs dismissal of climate change is no worse that the dems idea that we can tax everything to infinity and "create jobs" through the use of unemployment benefits.
So to you, which one has a monopoly on the truth?
...one of the greatest books ever written on "Science" as a general thought process. Highly recommended reading if you haven't read it already.