Either quite or pretty well (depending on which position you mentally assign the Times and Post), first was the NY Times, second was the WS Journal, third was the WaPost. Personally I liked the Financial Times article best (but their wording is typically a giveaway). I agree that the Post packed the most into their lead paragraph (to be fair their article was much shorter than the other two).
I was unaware that most buildings had sewer lines that were magnetically isolated from other matter (might be an interesting grant opportunity right there--antimatter sewer lines, stop pollution and provide alternative energy).
If anyone wants to try, here are the leading paragraphs to the articles about this subject (from the Post, Times, and Journal). Without looking up the stories, try to pick which paper wrote them:
Paragraph 1
In May, in a nearly empty basement ballroom at the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington, Del., Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, stood between huge timers, intended to limit questions from the handful of shareholders present. After dismissing questions about his compensation or the independence of the board, Mr. Nardelli abruptly ended the meeting after only 30 minutes.It was a surprising turnaround for Home Depot's board, which had publicly supported Mr. Nardelli as recently as two weeks ago even as questions about his compensation, business strategy and autocratic management style mounted.
Paragraph 2
Last June, Home Depot Inc.'s board compensation committee decided to review the most contentious aspect of Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Nardelli's tenure: his pay package. Mr. Nardelli submitted a one-page list of perks he was willing to drop, including personal use of the six corporate jets, according to one person involved in the matter. But he dug in his heels about his guaranteed $3 million annual bonus and his hefty supplemental pension arrangement. "I know that things have to change," he said, according to a second person familiar with the situation.
Paragraph 3
Robert L. Nardelli has abruptly resigned as chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, pocketing a lavish severance package and leaving shareholders with a stock that has languished even as sales have nearly doubled during his six-year tenure. In a statement released yesterday, Home Depot's board of directors and Nardelli said they "mutually agreed" to the resignation, which took effect Tuesday. Under the terms of a separation agreement negotiated when he joined the company in 2000, Nardelli, 58, is to receive about $210 million in cash and stock options, including a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million.
Pray tell, if you notice any differences between these three (in terms of bias).
I'd guess that most people couldn't guess the source between an article written about Bob Nardelli's departure by the Post, Times, and Journal if the were reprinted on plain paper. The editorials (if any are written over the next few weeeks would be obvious, but that isn't the journalism side of the paper). The Times editorial board generally sits to the left of most folks in the US.
Also, do you mean the Washington Times? I don't think the Post qualifies for an obviously.
Really I was asking your first paragraph's question in a very flippant manner. I am quite certain that it is possible to completely flip a person's esteem from themeselves to an external source (where making that source happy became how they expressed happiness even if that inflicts pain on themselves). Take the biography of "Confessions of a Video Vixen" as an example. Obviously we consider that to be very, very wrong. However, we don't consider it to be wrong to reprogram a robot to have a flipped view of say self preservation. I'm interested about the point at which it would be wrong to change a robot's programming and why. Perhaps there isn't a point at which it is reached, but then I'd wonder why the robot being our creation makes such a difference in the morality of the situation.
In a more concrete case, I'm presuming that there must be at least a rudimentary sense of self preservation in a thinking robot, it would be a curious decision making tree if that doesn't exist. If so, what level of destruction would be moral to inflict? Pain is essentially the body's way of telling the brain that I am less likely to continue to preserve life in this state, which is an important message to be delivered.
Does reprogramming it to like the abuse really make it ok? I would imagine that through constant pressure you could probably "reprogram" a person to enjoy abuse you inflicted on them. But that doesn't make it any more right.
I'm not a lawyer... The requirements for being awarded the full penalty is that the claimant must bear the full costs of the investigation, and the infringer must be willfully infringing. If they don't the penalties drop dramatically (to several hundred dollars per infringed work. I'd suspect the statute was written to create an eyepopping figure that would serve as a potential big stick to wave but almost never be awarded.
I think it's the same issue as the Wall St Journal. It's a fine newspaper that frequently does indepth ground breaking reporting on their fields. You'd be pretty hard pressed to notice a whole lot of differences in the reporting on national stories in it or any other national paper, but it would have far more coverage of topical (business) news but on national issues both are very similar. However, their editorial pages range from center right (in the US) to wacknut far right. Because of this the whole paper is commonly percieved as a far right paper. I blame the inability of people to separate facts from opinions.
If Murdoch is to be blamed for anything it's pandering to the lowest common denominator in his news gathering for ratings (which has been a pattern of his far longer than the first day Fox News started broadcasting).
Ironically, the people of California paid for your cheap bulbs (and most of the folks near my home's high speed internet). Who do you think was the primary beneficiary of the exceedingly high prices of 1999-2000 there? Hint it wasn't Enron.
Probably from US Code Title 17 Chapter 5 section 504 which outlines the damage limits for copyright infringement. Lawyers are funny folk, they actually read the laws that are published. There are requirements for the court to actually award this level of damages.
Dunno if games will ever get there, but newspaper circulation barely covers the cost of paper and ink, so in that case the savings are very well passed on to the consumer. Even more true with broadcast television.
I know Subaru was shocked at how much demand there was for WRXs when they were launched. I think they decided that games like Gran Turismo were responsible for a huge amount of branding. That's the sort of advertising that works in games.
Dubai has very little oil actually. They did build the main container port for the Middle East and benefit from tourism (not in small part due to the oil wealth from the surrounding nations) but their direct benefits from oil have been minor.
Not increased sales, it meant they didn't have to throw out old pots and make fresh ones as frequently. If I recall correctly the jury used some multiple of a day or year's coffee profits as the basis for calculating punative damages. I wish there were some way to have the punative portion of corporate damanges go to someone other than the victim ($10 million dollars isn't very much to most multinationals but is far more than an individual needs for a comfortable life).
Because being on a precious metal standard restricts the ability of the government to raise funds (via inflation). Governments can simply print new money and spend it which taxes everyone who uses the currency). If you have to acquire additional gold, that option is gone. An additional factor is that gold sitting in a vault cannot be used for jewelry or electronics.
I've checked interest calculations on several bank statements and from the rounding that takes place when it occurs interest is acrrued to at least 11 places (even if the printed statement only shows 2).
If Putin were retaking the money the oligarchs stole from the state and returning it to the people (who should have owned it following the breakup of the Soviet union) it would be one thing, but he seems to be retaking assets only to distribute them to the oligarch B team who are his buddies, it is those appearances that cause the objections.
That junk metal coins are now worth more than their face value is mostly the result of declining value of a dollar rather than the rarity of the metal contained within.
If you truly believe that then I will take any underwater options you wish to give away (I might even surprise you with the price I'd be willing to pay).
The IRS waits until the options are exercised and considers the expense to be the difference between exercise price and market. However, options are essentially they way we value the chance that the stock will go up or down (and as such they have value above and beyond their exercisable value) and that value should be expensed (as the company gave it to you in exchange for your performance. Essentially there are relationships based on how volatile a stock is expected to be that have a huge impact on the option's value (for that reason options on Google's stock are worth more than options on say Anheuser-Busch's).
Normally when a liability is created that has an unknown ultimate value (say a warantee or loan performance) managment makes a good faith estimate of the cost and then adjustes their estimate for actual results. Somehow in the case of employee options the method was to ignore them.
I agree, but would rather see the argument shift toward moving balance sheets to better reflect the current exposure of all implied derivatives (like the pension example too) rather than continuing to ignore them catagorically.
Slashdot Mirror
Either quite or pretty well (depending on which position you mentally assign the Times and Post), first was the NY Times, second was the WS Journal, third was the WaPost. Personally I liked the Financial Times article best (but their wording is typically a giveaway). I agree that the Post packed the most into their lead paragraph (to be fair their article was much shorter than the other two).
I was unaware that most buildings had sewer lines that were magnetically isolated from other matter (might be an interesting grant opportunity right there--antimatter sewer lines, stop pollution and provide alternative energy).
If anyone wants to try, here are the leading paragraphs to the articles about this subject (from the Post, Times, and Journal). Without looking up the stories, try to pick which paper wrote them:
Paragraph 1
In May, in a nearly empty basement ballroom at the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington, Del., Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, stood between huge timers, intended to limit questions from the handful of shareholders present. After dismissing questions about his compensation or the independence of the board, Mr. Nardelli abruptly ended the meeting after only 30 minutes.It was a surprising turnaround for Home Depot's board, which had publicly supported Mr. Nardelli as recently as two weeks ago even as questions about his compensation, business strategy and autocratic management style mounted.
Paragraph 2
Last June, Home Depot Inc.'s board compensation committee decided to review the most contentious aspect of Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Nardelli's tenure: his pay package. Mr. Nardelli submitted a one-page list of perks he was willing to drop, including personal use of the six corporate jets, according to one person involved in the matter. But he dug in his heels about his guaranteed $3 million annual bonus and his hefty supplemental pension arrangement. "I know that things have to change," he said, according to a second person familiar with the situation.
Paragraph 3
Robert L. Nardelli has abruptly resigned as chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, pocketing a lavish severance package and leaving shareholders with a stock that has languished even as sales have nearly doubled during his six-year tenure. In a statement released yesterday, Home Depot's board of directors and Nardelli said they "mutually agreed" to the resignation, which took effect Tuesday. Under the terms of a separation agreement negotiated when he joined the company in 2000, Nardelli, 58, is to receive about $210 million in cash and stock options, including a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million.
Pray tell, if you notice any differences between these three (in terms of bias).
I'd guess that most people couldn't guess the source between an article written about Bob Nardelli's departure by the Post, Times, and Journal if the were reprinted on plain paper. The editorials (if any are written over the next few weeeks would be obvious, but that isn't the journalism side of the paper). The Times editorial board generally sits to the left of most folks in the US.
Also, do you mean the Washington Times? I don't think the Post qualifies for an obviously.
Really I was asking your first paragraph's question in a very flippant manner. I am quite certain that it is possible to completely flip a person's esteem from themeselves to an external source (where making that source happy became how they expressed happiness even if that inflicts pain on themselves). Take the biography of "Confessions of a Video Vixen" as an example. Obviously we consider that to be very, very wrong. However, we don't consider it to be wrong to reprogram a robot to have a flipped view of say self preservation. I'm interested about the point at which it would be wrong to change a robot's programming and why. Perhaps there isn't a point at which it is reached, but then I'd wonder why the robot being our creation makes such a difference in the morality of the situation.
In a more concrete case, I'm presuming that there must be at least a rudimentary sense of self preservation in a thinking robot, it would be a curious decision making tree if that doesn't exist. If so, what level of destruction would be moral to inflict? Pain is essentially the body's way of telling the brain that I am less likely to continue to preserve life in this state, which is an important message to be delivered.
Does reprogramming it to like the abuse really make it ok? I would imagine that through constant pressure you could probably "reprogram" a person to enjoy abuse you inflicted on them. But that doesn't make it any more right.
I'm not a lawyer... The requirements for being awarded the full penalty is that the claimant must bear the full costs of the investigation, and the infringer must be willfully infringing. If they don't the penalties drop dramatically (to several hundred dollars per infringed work. I'd suspect the statute was written to create an eyepopping figure that would serve as a potential big stick to wave but almost never be awarded.
I think it's the same issue as the Wall St Journal. It's a fine newspaper that frequently does indepth ground breaking reporting on their fields. You'd be pretty hard pressed to notice a whole lot of differences in the reporting on national stories in it or any other national paper, but it would have far more coverage of topical (business) news but on national issues both are very similar. However, their editorial pages range from center right (in the US) to wacknut far right. Because of this the whole paper is commonly percieved as a far right paper. I blame the inability of people to separate facts from opinions.
If Murdoch is to be blamed for anything it's pandering to the lowest common denominator in his news gathering for ratings (which has been a pattern of his far longer than the first day Fox News started broadcasting).
Ironically, the people of California paid for your cheap bulbs (and most of the folks near my home's high speed internet). Who do you think was the primary beneficiary of the exceedingly high prices of 1999-2000 there? Hint it wasn't Enron.
Probably from US Code Title 17 Chapter 5 section 504 which outlines the damage limits for copyright infringement. Lawyers are funny folk, they actually read the laws that are published. There are requirements for the court to actually award this level of damages.
Dunno if games will ever get there, but newspaper circulation barely covers the cost of paper and ink, so in that case the savings are very well passed on to the consumer. Even more true with broadcast television.
I know Subaru was shocked at how much demand there was for WRXs when they were launched. I think they decided that games like Gran Turismo were responsible for a huge amount of branding. That's the sort of advertising that works in games.
I'd reccomend you not tell your wife about that theory. Women hate getting bigger, even if everything else is, too.
Dubai has very little oil actually. They did build the main container port for the Middle East and benefit from tourism (not in small part due to the oil wealth from the surrounding nations) but their direct benefits from oil have been minor.
Not increased sales, it meant they didn't have to throw out old pots and make fresh ones as frequently. If I recall correctly the jury used some multiple of a day or year's coffee profits as the basis for calculating punative damages. I wish there were some way to have the punative portion of corporate damanges go to someone other than the victim ($10 million dollars isn't very much to most multinationals but is far more than an individual needs for a comfortable life).
Because being on a precious metal standard restricts the ability of the government to raise funds (via inflation). Governments can simply print new money and spend it which taxes everyone who uses the currency). If you have to acquire additional gold, that option is gone. An additional factor is that gold sitting in a vault cannot be used for jewelry or electronics.
I've checked interest calculations on several bank statements and from the rounding that takes place when it occurs interest is acrrued to at least 11 places (even if the printed statement only shows 2).
I'd probably vote for a lab on general principle (those are pretty great dogs).
If Putin were retaking the money the oligarchs stole from the state and returning it to the people (who should have owned it following the breakup of the Soviet union) it would be one thing, but he seems to be retaking assets only to distribute them to the oligarch B team who are his buddies, it is those appearances that cause the objections.
That junk metal coins are now worth more than their face value is mostly the result of declining value of a dollar rather than the rarity of the metal contained within.
Only on /. does the best post on the whole board go unnoticed all day long.
If you truly believe that then I will take any underwater options you wish to give away (I might even surprise you with the price I'd be willing to pay).
More importantly the insider 30% of the shares each carry 10 votes per share, so they have something like 90% of the votes.
The IRS waits until the options are exercised and considers the expense to be the difference between exercise price and market. However, options are essentially they way we value the chance that the stock will go up or down (and as such they have value above and beyond their exercisable value) and that value should be expensed (as the company gave it to you in exchange for your performance. Essentially there are relationships based on how volatile a stock is expected to be that have a huge impact on the option's value (for that reason options on Google's stock are worth more than options on say Anheuser-Busch's).
Normally when a liability is created that has an unknown ultimate value (say a warantee or loan performance) managment makes a good faith estimate of the cost and then adjustes their estimate for actual results. Somehow in the case of employee options the method was to ignore them.
I agree, but would rather see the argument shift toward moving balance sheets to better reflect the current exposure of all implied derivatives (like the pension example too) rather than continuing to ignore them catagorically.