Not so much potable as not seawater. To generate hydrogen in the amounts needed to power transportation you are going to have some serious issues with chlorine and insoluable percipitates.
I don't know of too many financial experts (who are really disinterested) who can make a credible claim that binomial option modeling is massively incorrect on the value of the options granted. I wish companies would have granted tradable options which would have made the whole problem disappear (just use the market price for them). I agree though that the accounting for DB pensions is a much larger issue. I find it more than a little ironic that some of the biggest losers in the overcompensation of employees option issue were the DB plans themselves (who were the owners of the companies that were overcompensating the employees).
For the last 100 years you stuck a straw in the Earth and got something that was pretty easy to turn into gasoline.
My point was that generally your anode and cathode will corrode pretty quickly if you are using seawater as your hydrogen generator and that within our lifetimes most of the world's non-seawater is likely to be directly related to the cost of energy.
The trick is the company has to expense them at let's say $x, but the employee views them as having value of 0.05*x or so, and they make far less effective payment currency. Google's move is aimed at narrowing that gap.
Well essentially they are, as most people under value their stock options. In Google's case viewing a 2 year option at intrinsic value is a substantial undervaluation. To give you some idea an option with a strike price of $600 (well above that of any employee stock options) is worth about $70/share, but good luck convincing the employees who got a grant with a strike of $500 or more.
It depends on the crop. Corn is chopped into silage (the whole plant) and fed to cattle and other animals). Wheat straw is burned and tilled under. Trees become firewood eventually (in a few cases furniture). The remainder are either fed to less picky animals or tilled into the ground or composted as a sort of recycling of the chemicals (the energy stored in the cellulose provides food for the soil ecosystem).
Clean potable water is surprisingly hard to access in quantities outside the developed world (and becoming far more scarce daily). Aquifers in the US are sinking (some with alarming speed). You generally can't just stick probes in the ocean and create industrial levels of hydrogen.
Most Democrats are center left rather than far left (not too many candidates espouse far left views Look at how well Kucinich did in the last primary). I'm basing my estimates on primary and general election results.
I'd say the US is about 20% far right, about 40% center right, about 10% centrist, 30-35% center left, and about 5% far left. So when Democrats hit their extreme it's probably only to a center left extreme (probably to the right of both of you). However, don't think that the right really gets more of their primary campaign promises done much more than the left (they typically get a few but most of them are symbolic more than anything).
Frame repitition frequency is 217 Hz (I googled it). Thanks for that explination. I assumed it wasn't in CDMA due to the coding vs TDMA based GSM, but couldn't figure out quite why it would create "extra" interference.
GSM phones have some sort of speaker interface issue. I'm not sure what it is, or why it is far less prevalent with CDMA, but I treat it as sort of a premonition that I'll be getting a phone call soon.
Um, wrong Maynard, the Tool lead is Maynard James Keenan. The quote is attributed to John Maynard Keynes the British economist who was the first economist to have a very meaningful impact on global policy. He essentially created the policies that governemnts applied to the depression, worked on the Marshall plan, Great Society, and creating Bretton Woods (which was what really created the middle class in the US for the next 40 years).
I was thinking that might be a cool idea, odd core hours to staff a store though. Thanks. Odd that he didn't realize it was upon them until more recently then.
It's actually pretty common that the CEO has no frikkin' clue what line employees do. He's there to sell stock to institutional investors, keep the firm's strategy going in the right direction (he'll get fired for not realizing that PCs are going to be difficult to mark up vs Dell, so we should move floorspace to TVs/services/content), and make sure that the next two levels down (regional managers and perhaps store managers) are implementing the corporate strategy. While the buck probably will get to his office if line employees are grossly not executing he probably doesn't have all that much knowledge of what happens.
More than likely one shift came up with this, with a pretty flexible store manager who then met his goals and it slowly expanded from there (until it was big enough that it got the CEO's attention). The trick will be to watch places like Bed Bath & Beyond (which allows considerable freedom to store managers), if they adopt this quickly it's probably a good idea, if they don't then perhaps it works here or isn't quite what is billed.
We Scandinavians try to hide our good cooking while presenting stuff like lutefisk to the outside. We'll keep our cod and tater tots to ourselves, thanks just the same.
Not that I'm advocating taxing unrealized cap gains, but to say that marking to market your investments once a year is some difficult task is laughable. I do it every day (including pretty thinly traded options) and it requires about 90 seconds, and that's manually entering all the pricing. If you had a data feed it would take milliseconds.
Taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains are all taxes on savings. I fail to see the difference between short and long term capital gains on any sort of economic basis. I would love to see far less tax tweaks to housing (those are about to give us a great big bite in the butt). Would you trade a low tax on unrealized capital gains for a tax break on interest and dividends at the corporate level?
And your dad doesn't give you an allowance? So hers has a few extra zeros. How many of us go to work in large part to provide for a family? "From shirtsleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations." Paris is exhibit A in our times for this one. That saying far predates inheritance taxes when you pick your mates for their attractiveness rather than brains/sense you head back to mediocrity pretty quickly.
Really, that's odd. I'm not aware of specifics in Australia but almost every Western government has tons of tax breaks for homeowners (it was widely attributed to be the basis of the middle class in the US) post-World War II). Perhaps I'm incorrect but this looks like there is a difference in the capital gains tax due on owner occupied houses and taxes due on say gains from equity shares, which is a pretty substantial tax break (and the one I was referring to. Is that out of date?
Wanna know why? Because western governements decided that homeownership should be promoted so they made it one of the few places to stick money that doesn't get taxed, so people bid up the price of the asset tremendously. If you just want shelter rent, buyers are buying a tax deduction and shelter (although it appears to me that they are massivly over paying for their tax deduction, I'll take my chances on future taxes and rental prices for now).
I'm pretty sure the current US reserve requirement is 10%. It is lower for the first $50 million (0-3%) but most of the lending happens at institutions that are well over that limit.
What is accumulated wealth? If I swap a service (say lawnmowing) for a painting have I increased my wealth (who is measuring)? What about the guy who can now spend his saturdays fishing? What if I only get to hang the painting for the next 5 years? What if I own a stock and sell the appreciation rights (while keeping control of the stock and it's dividends) for the next 10 years? How do you handle currently accumulated wealth? Why should the children of the poor bear a disproportionate burden under your tax if existing wealth is left alone presumably at implimentation? Will your system be progressive (higher rates for larger annual wealth accumulation)? How do you handle a married couple (with one or two incomes) vs two single people (with one or two incomes) living together perhaps for a long period of time? What about retirees who own their own homes (and probably would not be able to afford annual tax bills for the appreciation of said home). I'm not really trying to poke holes in your idea, rather to give some out there (but similar to real transactions) that are very difficult to tax fairly. Creating a tax structure is extrodinarily complex (because every rule you write creates new incentives and changes behavior.
Now, I get out my stick. This plan would create huge incentives for the government to maintain high inflalation (which would result in annual increases in asset values and therefor higher tax bills).
Finally, this would reward people who produce high incomes but do not create reserves because the income produced by the reserves would be taxed while additional services/consumables they could have purchased would not be. How do you propose addressing the survive the inevitable surprises with smaller reserves?
61,000 although she doesn't own too much of the company any longer. Didn't you think that that the fact that Paris Hilton's name was a little too close to the name of something else to be just chance?
Slashdot Mirror
Not so much potable as not seawater. To generate hydrogen in the amounts needed to power transportation you are going to have some serious issues with chlorine and insoluable percipitates.
Yeah an option to buy the stock $100 over the current price expiring 2 years from today is worth $70/share.
I don't know of too many financial experts (who are really disinterested) who can make a credible claim that binomial option modeling is massively incorrect on the value of the options granted. I wish companies would have granted tradable options which would have made the whole problem disappear (just use the market price for them). I agree though that the accounting for DB pensions is a much larger issue. I find it more than a little ironic that some of the biggest losers in the overcompensation of employees option issue were the DB plans themselves (who were the owners of the companies that were overcompensating the employees).
For the last 100 years you stuck a straw in the Earth and got something that was pretty easy to turn into gasoline. My point was that generally your anode and cathode will corrode pretty quickly if you are using seawater as your hydrogen generator and that within our lifetimes most of the world's non-seawater is likely to be directly related to the cost of energy.
The trick is the company has to expense them at let's say $x, but the employee views them as having value of 0.05*x or so, and they make far less effective payment currency. Google's move is aimed at narrowing that gap.
Well essentially they are, as most people under value their stock options. In Google's case viewing a 2 year option at intrinsic value is a substantial undervaluation. To give you some idea an option with a strike price of $600 (well above that of any employee stock options) is worth about $70/share, but good luck convincing the employees who got a grant with a strike of $500 or more.
Yeah and 60% of them grew their own food. Modern economic specialization works because energy replaced people on farms.
It depends on the crop. Corn is chopped into silage (the whole plant) and fed to cattle and other animals). Wheat straw is burned and tilled under. Trees become firewood eventually (in a few cases furniture). The remainder are either fed to less picky animals or tilled into the ground or composted as a sort of recycling of the chemicals (the energy stored in the cellulose provides food for the soil ecosystem).
Clean potable water is surprisingly hard to access in quantities outside the developed world (and becoming far more scarce daily). Aquifers in the US are sinking (some with alarming speed). You generally can't just stick probes in the ocean and create industrial levels of hydrogen.
Most Democrats are center left rather than far left (not too many candidates espouse far left views Look at how well Kucinich did in the last primary). I'm basing my estimates on primary and general election results.
I'd say the US is about 20% far right, about 40% center right, about 10% centrist, 30-35% center left, and about 5% far left. So when Democrats hit their extreme it's probably only to a center left extreme (probably to the right of both of you). However, don't think that the right really gets more of their primary campaign promises done much more than the left (they typically get a few but most of them are symbolic more than anything).
Frame repitition frequency is 217 Hz (I googled it). Thanks for that explination. I assumed it wasn't in CDMA due to the coding vs TDMA based GSM, but couldn't figure out quite why it would create "extra" interference.
GSM phones have some sort of speaker interface issue. I'm not sure what it is, or why it is far less prevalent with CDMA, but I treat it as sort of a premonition that I'll be getting a phone call soon.
Um, wrong Maynard, the Tool lead is Maynard James Keenan. The quote is attributed to John Maynard Keynes the British economist who was the first economist to have a very meaningful impact on global policy. He essentially created the policies that governemnts applied to the depression, worked on the Marshall plan, Great Society, and creating Bretton Woods (which was what really created the middle class in the US for the next 40 years).
I was thinking that might be a cool idea, odd core hours to staff a store though. Thanks. Odd that he didn't realize it was upon them until more recently then.
It's actually pretty common that the CEO has no frikkin' clue what line employees do. He's there to sell stock to institutional investors, keep the firm's strategy going in the right direction (he'll get fired for not realizing that PCs are going to be difficult to mark up vs Dell, so we should move floorspace to TVs/services/content), and make sure that the next two levels down (regional managers and perhaps store managers) are implementing the corporate strategy. While the buck probably will get to his office if line employees are grossly not executing he probably doesn't have all that much knowledge of what happens.
More than likely one shift came up with this, with a pretty flexible store manager who then met his goals and it slowly expanded from there (until it was big enough that it got the CEO's attention). The trick will be to watch places like Bed Bath & Beyond (which allows considerable freedom to store managers), if they adopt this quickly it's probably a good idea, if they don't then perhaps it works here or isn't quite what is billed.
We Scandinavians try to hide our good cooking while presenting stuff like lutefisk to the outside. We'll keep our cod and tater tots to ourselves, thanks just the same.
When selling a $10/mo subscription, I'd rather have 300,000 rabid fans than 30,000,000 casual fans (who watch their owned movies once a month).
Not that I'm advocating taxing unrealized cap gains, but to say that marking to market your investments once a year is some difficult task is laughable. I do it every day (including pretty thinly traded options) and it requires about 90 seconds, and that's manually entering all the pricing. If you had a data feed it would take milliseconds.
Taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains are all taxes on savings. I fail to see the difference between short and long term capital gains on any sort of economic basis. I would love to see far less tax tweaks to housing (those are about to give us a great big bite in the butt). Would you trade a low tax on unrealized capital gains for a tax break on interest and dividends at the corporate level?
And your dad doesn't give you an allowance? So hers has a few extra zeros. How many of us go to work in large part to provide for a family? "From shirtsleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations." Paris is exhibit A in our times for this one. That saying far predates inheritance taxes when you pick your mates for their attractiveness rather than brains/sense you head back to mediocrity pretty quickly.
Really, that's odd. I'm not aware of specifics in Australia but almost every Western government has tons of tax breaks for homeowners (it was widely attributed to be the basis of the middle class in the US) post-World War II). Perhaps I'm incorrect but this looks like there is a difference in the capital gains tax due on owner occupied houses and taxes due on say gains from equity shares, which is a pretty substantial tax break (and the one I was referring to. Is that out of date?
Wanna know why? Because western governements decided that homeownership should be promoted so they made it one of the few places to stick money that doesn't get taxed, so people bid up the price of the asset tremendously. If you just want shelter rent, buyers are buying a tax deduction and shelter (although it appears to me that they are massivly over paying for their tax deduction, I'll take my chances on future taxes and rental prices for now).
I'm pretty sure the current US reserve requirement is 10%. It is lower for the first $50 million (0-3%) but most of the lending happens at institutions that are well over that limit.
What is accumulated wealth? If I swap a service (say lawnmowing) for a painting have I increased my wealth (who is measuring)? What about the guy who can now spend his saturdays fishing? What if I only get to hang the painting for the next 5 years? What if I own a stock and sell the appreciation rights (while keeping control of the stock and it's dividends) for the next 10 years? How do you handle currently accumulated wealth? Why should the children of the poor bear a disproportionate burden under your tax if existing wealth is left alone presumably at implimentation? Will your system be progressive (higher rates for larger annual wealth accumulation)? How do you handle a married couple (with one or two incomes) vs two single people (with one or two incomes) living together perhaps for a long period of time? What about retirees who own their own homes (and probably would not be able to afford annual tax bills for the appreciation of said home). I'm not really trying to poke holes in your idea, rather to give some out there (but similar to real transactions) that are very difficult to tax fairly. Creating a tax structure is extrodinarily complex (because every rule you write creates new incentives and changes behavior.
Now, I get out my stick. This plan would create huge incentives for the government to maintain high inflalation (which would result in annual increases in asset values and therefor higher tax bills). Finally, this would reward people who produce high incomes but do not create reserves because the income produced by the reserves would be taxed while additional services/consumables they could have purchased would not be. How do you propose addressing the survive the inevitable surprises with smaller reserves?
61,000 although she doesn't own too much of the company any longer. Didn't you think that that the fact that Paris Hilton's name was a little too close to the name of something else to be just chance?