The major things I haven't found replicated yet are: better access to financial statements, message boards (that have occasionally useful commentary), and portfolios that are easy to create and retrive.
Have they spoken with Bloomberg about this? They already remap keys (by ordering custom keyboards in all sorts of funky colors) and it causes no end of confusion among a portion of their users who can't find the delete key any more (it's labeld CONN/DFLT (in big upper case) delete (in lower case) on their keyboard). This seems like the best of both worlds. And Bloomberg has plenty to drop a few hundred more on their systems. They've been shipping wireless keyboard/flat screen sets for at least 5 years and the latest keyboard has a print scanner.
Google's also free, and it seems to be pulling down a decent chunk. I think their biggest problem is that the really valuable portion of the target market for subscription services has already been captured by things like Bloomberg. Perhaps they should start a brokerage and push their own trading platform.
Yahoo finance seems to be the only product they have that is best in class (in my experience). It's probably the best ad supported place to go for info out there.
It's essentially like prosecutors tossing in a conspiracy charge in addition to the criminal charge (if they think you might have had a partner). Trials are funny things and it's generally easier to let a bogus charge get dismissed than try to add it later if the evidence makes a judgment look probably or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can think of more than a few payroll companies who have N and -N (payroll processing is one of the big ones) but the time difference between the two was enough to account for a large stable portfolio and substantial income from those activities.
What good is a tremendously valuable resource if you are dead? Those in power in most OPEC nations are there because the oil importing nations protect them. No oil, no protection and you will have massive uprisings of the citizenry of those nations.
I actually switched from engineering to economics, and it wasn't too long before I caught on to that linguistic difference. Unfortunatly most folks who use marginal rates don't seem to understand the relationships between a changes in the first and second derivative and changes in the function. I had the misfortune of having several far too many people who should have known better folks attempt to convince me that because the second derivative was negative that the underlying function would have to decline instantaniously or it indicated fraud, while I just shook my head in amazement.
I think the difference in attitudes toward media portrayals arises from the likelihood of occurance. Most parents are pretty sure (correctly so) that if little Jonny or Janey see even 1,000 or more violent acts by the time they are 18 that they won't carry one out. But they fear that more information will lead to less than ideal decisions. In part because the parents face a portion of the costs but none of the pleasure of an early pregnancy while the child faces a portion of the cost and all of the pleasure. Also, adolecent minds generally have not developed the capacity to fully weigh consequences that do not occur on a short time horizon. Although I'll be the first to admitt that my idea does littel to explain the relative differences in media portrayals between the US and Europe.
I think most everyone would be improved by more exposure to statistics. Business is one degree that most needs more calculus (most of what businessmen deal with is rates of change). For example the income statement contains the first derivative of most of the balance sheet, but I've never heard the term even broadly hinted at in any business classes.
Excepting the New Deal period, Democrats have behaved like that for about 100 years. It's the result of a large coalition of mostly single issue interest groups rather than two tangentially related interest groups (social conservatives and laissez faire busiessfolk).
Today is the emotional reaction, the whole market opens down, because sneaky dems are bad for business. But it's up to individual companies rallied or sank more than usual due to their prospects. The GSEs got a huge amount of pressure of a new regulatory bill, while big pharma is likely to get more pressure applied.
I always drew the lines sorta like a plate of spagetti. Sure they connectted the arrows but between then they were all everywhere. I liked the old mechanical voting machines (lots of little levers for all your votes, then one big lever to register and reset them (and open and close the curtain).
I agree, that is the best solution, but it has proven very difficult to get Western economies to gift the technology to China. They won't be willing to pay for it on internal benefits (any more than the West was during the industrial revolution). It's a rough prisoner's dilemma that could easily be solved by a technological infrastructure investment, which hasn't had a sponsor, yet. It would be a great thing for some of those philanthropic foundations to independently back.
There are not fair standards for Kyoto because of inherent differences in economic development. The US and Western Europe are huge CO2 emitters but they are also both very efficient emitters of CO2 (they produce substantially more economic activity per unit of CO2 emitted. However, that efficiency was the result of larger emissions produced in the past (in other words the bulk of emitted CO2 is in the atmosphere getting the US and Western Europe to the efficiency level they are currently at). India and China (being the largest representatives of a larger group of similar nations) are currently smaller emitters of CO2, but are less efficient emitters of CO2, and because of that it will be cheaper for the high efficiency users to essentially buy off India and China's development (and those peak level emissions) rather than reduce their own emissions. So a Kyoto that held everyone to the same standard would result in the curtailment of most development in China and India while one that doesn't curtails high value emissions in the US and Western Europe in favor of currently less efficient emission in India and China.
It's essentially the same problem as the marriage tax/marriage penalty. There is no way for a progressive tax system to fairly account for dual incomes that are married in a way that is equitable to all. There are many sets of compromises that would be acceptable, although all parties will have an alternative that is more favorable to them at least in part.
I like some bluegrass, but I wish WAMU would break it up a bit with some thing else. I do like the old time radio programs on Sunday evening (or perhaps it's just the end of the twanging).
I'd take your point one step further and say it's ubiquitous because it's very stable. MS learned long ago that they way to succeed in creating an operating system is do everything you can to ensure that developers find your system the easiest way to access the marketplace. If they are responsible for an innovation in this business it was that. Whenever there was a threat to their control over the developer base they attacked generally viciously.
To get a trial run of these attitudes, I'd suggest spending a little time along the northern US border (in Montana, North Dakota, or Minnesota) which have been strongly influenced by Scandinavian culture.
Actually Islamic or Sharia banking is all the rage with the big banks. There are several approved methods (repurchase agreements and leases to joint ventures), but you need an Imam to bless your transaction so it's rather like a food processing plant being approved Kosher by a Rabbi.
The point is that most voice actors would probably be doing pretty good to find a gig a month. It's a nice payday but not regular enough to get a mortgage on (unless you're pretty unique--top 10% or so).
That's probably unintentially ironic considering second world was the Communist bloc. I wonder if first and second were reversed inside the iron curtain?
Slashdot Mirror
The major things I haven't found replicated yet are: better access to financial statements, message boards (that have occasionally useful commentary), and portfolios that are easy to create and retrive.
Have they spoken with Bloomberg about this? They already remap keys (by ordering custom keyboards in all sorts of funky colors) and it causes no end of confusion among a portion of their users who can't find the delete key any more (it's labeld CONN/DFLT (in big upper case) delete (in lower case) on their keyboard). This seems like the best of both worlds. And Bloomberg has plenty to drop a few hundred more on their systems. They've been shipping wireless keyboard/flat screen sets for at least 5 years and the latest keyboard has a print scanner.
Google's also free, and it seems to be pulling down a decent chunk. I think their biggest problem is that the really valuable portion of the target market for subscription services has already been captured by things like Bloomberg. Perhaps they should start a brokerage and push their own trading platform.
Yahoo finance seems to be the only product they have that is best in class (in my experience). It's probably the best ad supported place to go for info out there.
It's essentially like prosecutors tossing in a conspiracy charge in addition to the criminal charge (if they think you might have had a partner). Trials are funny things and it's generally easier to let a bogus charge get dismissed than try to add it later if the evidence makes a judgment look probably or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
You may be right this time, but wait until I discover the process for creating Damascus Aluminum. Then all shall fear my wrath!
I can think of more than a few payroll companies who have N and -N (payroll processing is one of the big ones) but the time difference between the two was enough to account for a large stable portfolio and substantial income from those activities.
What good is a tremendously valuable resource if you are dead? Those in power in most OPEC nations are there because the oil importing nations protect them. No oil, no protection and you will have massive uprisings of the citizenry of those nations.
I actually switched from engineering to economics, and it wasn't too long before I caught on to that linguistic difference. Unfortunatly most folks who use marginal rates don't seem to understand the relationships between a changes in the first and second derivative and changes in the function. I had the misfortune of having several far too many people who should have known better folks attempt to convince me that because the second derivative was negative that the underlying function would have to decline instantaniously or it indicated fraud, while I just shook my head in amazement.
I think the difference in attitudes toward media portrayals arises from the likelihood of occurance. Most parents are pretty sure (correctly so) that if little Jonny or Janey see even 1,000 or more violent acts by the time they are 18 that they won't carry one out. But they fear that more information will lead to less than ideal decisions. In part because the parents face a portion of the costs but none of the pleasure of an early pregnancy while the child faces a portion of the cost and all of the pleasure. Also, adolecent minds generally have not developed the capacity to fully weigh consequences that do not occur on a short time horizon. Although I'll be the first to admitt that my idea does littel to explain the relative differences in media portrayals between the US and Europe.
I think most everyone would be improved by more exposure to statistics. Business is one degree that most needs more calculus (most of what businessmen deal with is rates of change). For example the income statement contains the first derivative of most of the balance sheet, but I've never heard the term even broadly hinted at in any business classes.
Excepting the New Deal period, Democrats have behaved like that for about 100 years. It's the result of a large coalition of mostly single issue interest groups rather than two tangentially related interest groups (social conservatives and laissez faire busiessfolk).
Today is the emotional reaction, the whole market opens down, because sneaky dems are bad for business. But it's up to individual companies rallied or sank more than usual due to their prospects. The GSEs got a huge amount of pressure of a new regulatory bill, while big pharma is likely to get more pressure applied.
I always drew the lines sorta like a plate of spagetti. Sure they connectted the arrows but between then they were all everywhere. I liked the old mechanical voting machines (lots of little levers for all your votes, then one big lever to register and reset them (and open and close the curtain).
I agree, that is the best solution, but it has proven very difficult to get Western economies to gift the technology to China. They won't be willing to pay for it on internal benefits (any more than the West was during the industrial revolution). It's a rough prisoner's dilemma that could easily be solved by a technological infrastructure investment, which hasn't had a sponsor, yet. It would be a great thing for some of those philanthropic foundations to independently back.
There are not fair standards for Kyoto because of inherent differences in economic development. The US and Western Europe are huge CO2 emitters but they are also both very efficient emitters of CO2 (they produce substantially more economic activity per unit of CO2 emitted. However, that efficiency was the result of larger emissions produced in the past (in other words the bulk of emitted CO2 is in the atmosphere getting the US and Western Europe to the efficiency level they are currently at). India and China (being the largest representatives of a larger group of similar nations) are currently smaller emitters of CO2, but are less efficient emitters of CO2, and because of that it will be cheaper for the high efficiency users to essentially buy off India and China's development (and those peak level emissions) rather than reduce their own emissions. So a Kyoto that held everyone to the same standard would result in the curtailment of most development in China and India while one that doesn't curtails high value emissions in the US and Western Europe in favor of currently less efficient emission in India and China.
It's essentially the same problem as the marriage tax/marriage penalty. There is no way for a progressive tax system to fairly account for dual incomes that are married in a way that is equitable to all. There are many sets of compromises that would be acceptable, although all parties will have an alternative that is more favorable to them at least in part.
I like some bluegrass, but I wish WAMU would break it up a bit with some thing else. I do like the old time radio programs on Sunday evening (or perhaps it's just the end of the twanging).
I'd take your point one step further and say it's ubiquitous because it's very stable. MS learned long ago that they way to succeed in creating an operating system is do everything you can to ensure that developers find your system the easiest way to access the marketplace. If they are responsible for an innovation in this business it was that. Whenever there was a threat to their control over the developer base they attacked generally viciously.
My grain runs up from my Adam's apple to just about my chin (it reverses about at the jaw bone).
To get a trial run of these attitudes, I'd suggest spending a little time along the northern US border (in Montana, North Dakota, or Minnesota) which have been strongly influenced by Scandinavian culture.
Actually Islamic or Sharia banking is all the rage with the big banks. There are several approved methods (repurchase agreements and leases to joint ventures), but you need an Imam to bless your transaction so it's rather like a food processing plant being approved Kosher by a Rabbi.
The point is that most voice actors would probably be doing pretty good to find a gig a month. It's a nice payday but not regular enough to get a mortgage on (unless you're pretty unique--top 10% or so).
That's probably unintentially ironic considering second world was the Communist bloc. I wonder if first and second were reversed inside the iron curtain?
Wouldn't the troll have to do it from under a bridge as a hiding place, or have they branched out a little now?
Yeah by both sides I meant the directors and mangement. The reporter was essentially a pawn in the other's game.