My point is that it should be The Market that determines the IPO price(s), not the necessarily incompetent and corrupt Central Planners. You'd think these guys ever heard of a little thing called the Free Market and the regulators would have an obligation to ensure that a Free Market is provided to the public?
Except that the simulcast material is *American* content. Its origin doesn't change just because it's been licensed by Canadian channels for broadcast in Canada. I haven't read the rules, but counting commercials as Can-Con would be pure lunacy. In fact, it would allow all Canadian channels to carry nothing but American content all of the time, defeating any pretense of Can-Con requirements actually existing.
The IPO also wasted nearly $10B considering that the issue price was $68 and it started trading at $95. I just can't understand the logic behind the IPO mechanism. The purpose of an IPO is to raise as much capital as possible for a company to enable it to grow. However, 41% of the IPO value didn't go to the company; it went to lottery-winning middle men who were given shares for $68 and immediately flipped them to the open market.
An IPO should operate like a Dutch auction, with company having a trading account loaded with all of the IPO shares and starting sale for at a high valuation like $200 and then ticking down 1% every minute that "too few" shares are sold. This maximizes the haul for the IPO company by not squandering billions of dollars on bank insiders.
I can't understand why the UK is playing along with the 50%+1 idea. It is illegitimate. All Constitutional changes require a supermajority and this is the most fundamental of all Constitutional changes. Canada dispensed with the 50%+1 foolishness after the 1995 Quebec referendum with the Clarity Act which quashes all hope for legal secession (since no more than 40% of Quebeckers have ever really supported secession). A simple 50%+1 majority would surely disappear in the face of the years of economically disruptive negotiations, capital flight, and population flight. (On second though, the latter might help the Yes side.)
This project was very successful, considering that the central purpose of all alternative-energy projects is to extract government subsidies. Any other outcome is coincidental.
I think that a fair way to approach taxation for multinational corporations would be to tax the revenue/profits earned in each tax jurisdiction according to that jurisdiction's rules. Instead of the concept of a jurisdiction providing services to enable corporate operations, view it as the jurisdiction providing consumers to corporations. That way, profits Apple earns from consumers within California are taxed the same way even if Apple moved all of its operations to Ireland.
However, to avoid the huge burden on small companies from reporting to several hundred tax jurisdictions, set a lower limit that jurisdiction reporting is only required when revenues from a jurisdiction reach $20M for a company (or whole aggregation of shell corporations).
You get total emissions by taking per-capita emissions and multiplying it by "capitas". Do you see how that has a big impact with China's number of "capitas"?
How many years in until Cook finally produces an innovative product? For the past three years, it's been all about belatedly adopting Android features. This fall, it will be the bigger screens Android phones have already had for years.
To paraphrase, "How about just shutting down all industry and going back to the caves?" A de-industrialized civilization could only support billions fewer people than are alive today. You would need to 'cull' all of the excess. But really, westerns will never voluntarily accept even energy poverty, so your mass-extermination plan is a no-starter.
Commissioning ariel photography is very expensive, is only done occasionally rather than continuously, and Putin would take a very dim view of you flying your plane over his army that he says isn't even there.
"Slander of title" is already illegal. You can sue if someone else asserts that they own the copyrights to your copyrighted work. The SCO Group tried to sue Novell for it and lost because SCO doesn't actually own the Unix copyrights.
So where is the same study for the other politically influenced sciences such as Climate Science? Or should we make assumptions about the political motivations of the researchers behind *this* study?
Slashdot Mirror
Buzz never punched anybody! The tape was faked! You can see that the shadows are all wrong!
My point is that it should be The Market that determines the IPO price(s), not the necessarily incompetent and corrupt Central Planners. You'd think these guys ever heard of a little thing called the Free Market and the regulators would have an obligation to ensure that a Free Market is provided to the public?
Except that the simulcast material is *American* content. Its origin doesn't change just because it's been licensed by Canadian channels for broadcast in Canada. I haven't read the rules, but counting commercials as Can-Con would be pure lunacy. In fact, it would allow all Canadian channels to carry nothing but American content all of the time, defeating any pretense of Can-Con requirements actually existing.
The IPO also wasted nearly $10B considering that the issue price was $68 and it started trading at $95. I just can't understand the logic behind the IPO mechanism. The purpose of an IPO is to raise as much capital as possible for a company to enable it to grow. However, 41% of the IPO value didn't go to the company; it went to lottery-winning middle men who were given shares for $68 and immediately flipped them to the open market.
An IPO should operate like a Dutch auction, with company having a trading account loaded with all of the IPO shares and starting sale for at a high valuation like $200 and then ticking down 1% every minute that "too few" shares are sold. This maximizes the haul for the IPO company by not squandering billions of dollars on bank insiders.
Huh? The American networks as carried in Canada do not have 50% Canadian content in prime time. In fact, it's probably zero percent.
I can't understand why the UK is playing along with the 50%+1 idea. It is illegitimate. All Constitutional changes require a supermajority and this is the most fundamental of all Constitutional changes. Canada dispensed with the 50%+1 foolishness after the 1995 Quebec referendum with the Clarity Act which quashes all hope for legal secession (since no more than 40% of Quebeckers have ever really supported secession). A simple 50%+1 majority would surely disappear in the face of the years of economically disruptive negotiations, capital flight, and population flight. (On second though, the latter might help the Yes side.)
If the UK is divisible, then so is Scotland. What do the people who live near the oil think about independence?
This project was very successful, considering that the central purpose of all alternative-energy projects is to extract government subsidies. Any other outcome is coincidental.
I think that a fair way to approach taxation for multinational corporations would be to tax the revenue/profits earned in each tax jurisdiction according to that jurisdiction's rules. Instead of the concept of a jurisdiction providing services to enable corporate operations, view it as the jurisdiction providing consumers to corporations. That way, profits Apple earns from consumers within California are taxed the same way even if Apple moved all of its operations to Ireland. However, to avoid the huge burden on small companies from reporting to several hundred tax jurisdictions, set a lower limit that jurisdiction reporting is only required when revenues from a jurisdiction reach $20M for a company (or whole aggregation of shell corporations).
followed by new patents on the same old ideas for "... on the web", "... on a smartphone", etc.
And jetliners. They need to run on batteries, too! Because I say so!
You get total emissions by taking per-capita emissions and multiplying it by "capitas". Do you see how that has a big impact with China's number of "capitas"?
Why is a taxpayer-funded broadcaster even allowed to own copyrights in the first place?
How many years in until Cook finally produces an innovative product? For the past three years, it's been all about belatedly adopting Android features. This fall, it will be the bigger screens Android phones have already had for years.
or "the dog ate my homework!"
To paraphrase, "How about just shutting down all industry and going back to the caves?" A de-industrialized civilization could only support billions fewer people than are alive today. You would need to 'cull' all of the excess. But really, westerns will never voluntarily accept even energy poverty, so your mass-extermination plan is a no-starter.
Commissioning ariel photography is very expensive, is only done occasionally rather than continuously, and Putin would take a very dim view of you flying your plane over his army that he says isn't even there.
But the CSI folks will be able to zoom in on that one pixel far enough to see your DNA.
365 / 7 = 52.14 weeks. 366 / 7 = 52.29 weeks. The workers might appreaciate having a few more bucks.
"Slander of title" is already illegal. You can sue if someone else asserts that they own the copyrights to your copyrighted work. The SCO Group tried to sue Novell for it and lost because SCO doesn't actually own the Unix copyrights.
Step 1: Get a smartphone for yourself and put music on it.
Step 2: Get in-ear earbuds that filter out most ambient noise.
Step 3: Press Play.
So where is the same study for the other politically influenced sciences such as Climate Science? Or should we make assumptions about the political motivations of the researchers behind *this* study?
That's odd, since a 7" tablet fits comfortably into my hand. Does your mommy know that you are posting personal information on the Internet?
"And a 4" screen is the optimal size... right up until this Fall when Apple releases the iPhone 6!"
Would someone who actually has a Ph.D. refer to it as a "phd"?