I remember in online games, if everyone else looks like they're lagged, it's really you that has the problem. Perhaps, when everyone else looks like an idiot... well, you know.
Basically, the man is saying that buying back shares and paying a dividend are both ways of returning money to investors. Dividends return the cash directly. Buying back shares "returns" the cash to the remaining shareholders by raising the value of their shares. Imagine Company A has assets worth $1 million and 1 million shares outstanding. Each share is worth $1. If Company A buys back 500,000 of the shares, each of the remaining 500,000 is worth $2, because the company has $1 million in assets. Because of various tax shenanigans, it can sometimes be better for the shareholders to have a buyback than a dividend. This example is oversimplified, but I hope it conveys the basics.
I actually find the opposite. Knowing that anyone can die at any time draws me in, because it makes for a more credible universe. Sometimes big, important people die from choking at dinner, but it never seems to happen in stories. Knowing that it's possible heightens the tension because there are "real" risks for the characters.
Under Stalin's rule, Cerenkov and Tamm won the 1958 Nobel Prize for Physics, as did Landau in 1962 for work carried out under Stalin, and Basov and Prokhorov in 1964.
No opinion either way on the point you guys are discussing, but I believe it is possible to put in intentionally incorrect words without undermining credibility. All you have to do is go for false negatives. For instance, put "lkjsdflkjsaf" in as a correctly-spelled word and see if Google also accepts it as correctly spelled. Nobody is going to accidentally type that in, so you can see if the dictionary is being used without compromising its integrity.
All told, I'd gladly buy it for $45 used again, but I certainly wouldn't pay the full $60 for it. Though, out of principal, I refuse to buy any game over $50.
I, too, only buy games over $50 out of interest. Gotta keep that principal growing the net worth, am I right???
I respectfully disagree, and I took my final exam in antitrust law this past Friday, so I'll toss in my $.02.
In no legal fashion or finding, are - or have - Microsoft and Apple ever been competitors. Apple's existence has _zero_ bearing on whether or not Microsoft is(/was) considered a monopoly.
Short version: The judge who decided that case was biased, and Microsoft's lawyers screwed the pooch when they appealed the decision. I wouldn't bet one red cent on that finding being repeated if the case were re-tried today.
Long version: The relevant product market (i.e. whether two firms compete with each other) is actually defined in exactly the way you dismiss at the end of your post: whether they make products that consumers view as reasonably interchangeable. The district court in the Microsoft case found they weren't competitors because the judge was biased against Microsoft and he wanted to reinforce the impression that Microsoft had a monopoly. The court had 2 justifications for finding that consumers would not switch to Macs even if Windows cost more (and therefore Windows did not compete with Mac OS): (1) increased hardware costs for Macs; and (2) difficulty of learning new programs. The first, ok I can buy (sic) that, but number 2? Additionally, Microsoft's lawyers screwed up bad when they argued this issue on appeal, essentially not even arguing the point. I put little faith in an unreviewed ruling by a biased judge. Add in the fact that the determination of whether there is competition between firms or not is highly fact-specific and evolves rapidly over time, and saying that Microsoft and Apple are not "legally" in competition is misleading at best.
Well, he may be a huge asshole, I don't see how it matters. From what I can tell Russia has enough freedom of the press for people to have a basic idea of what's going on. If they want to elect some sort of neo-Communist dictator with a penchant for radiation poisonings, isn't that their right, even if we in the US and elsewhere may not be too enthused?
I used to get A's in all my high school English classes, no problem. So nothing really impressed the importance of revision on me until I took freshman writing at college. What the instructor did was have us write 5 or 6 essays throughout the semester. Then, our last (and biggest) grade was just a rewrite of one of our other papers. It was graded on improvement from the first draft, not overall quality. Then he had a conference with everyone in the class to discuss with them why their paper was better the second time. It worked quite well, too. The importance of revision was definitely the best lesson I took out of that course.
That would be considered non-elective surgery, which is a form of assault {at least common assault, and maybe ABH or even GBH if an allergic reaction or septicaemia develops} -- and therefore illegal. Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.
In other news, Mike Tyson's opponent goes to jail.
Seriously though, as neatly as this theory fits in with the Official Slashdot Interpretation of the story, it just ain't so. There's no way we'd have boxing, martial arts competition, or even pro wrestling if "you cannot consent to assault." You could fight this implanted RFID stuff, of course, but lack of consent isn't the argument you're going to want to take to court.
RTFA. Right at the start it says "it wouldn't be fair to say Doom was the first first-person shooter..." The quote in parent meant exactly what it said: Wolfenstein 3D was the game that introduced gamers to FPS games. I.e. it was the first popular one.
The American legal system does a fairly good job of tossing frivolous lawsuits. This is not to say it couldn't be improved, of course, but the fact remains. I direct your attention to the Spotlight fallacy.
Ahn'Qiraj (sp?) is a new dungeon that only opens after each server donates a large amount of in-game items to various NPCs over the course of a couple weeks. It has content that is geared mainly towards players who have both reached the level cap and joined huge "raiding" guilds. New players get almost nothing from it as far as I can tell.
I think. I was pretty confident that I knew what was going on until I read that terrible, terrible article summary. The reason the submitter brought up server stability is that players from all the 100+ servers started creating characters on the "Medivh" server in order to watch the in-game event that opens the dungeon, because Medivh finished the quest before all the other servers. Blizzard suspended new character creation on the server though, so I'm not sure if stability is still an issue or not.
I would advise against the "clear honest answer" approach. Not that I advocate lying, but it's not good for you and it's not good for the company. You benefit from the job, and they benefit from the work you do for them. If you get hired everyone wins.
Say the interviewer asks you what your biggest weakness is. Are you seriously going to tell them that you hate working with people? Or you don't know anything about their main programming language? Hell no! The clear, blunt answer doesn't work. Instead of helping to convince them to hire you (which would be good for both of you), you've convinced them not to hire you. Consider the difference if you say that you used to have a problem with attention to detail, but after a lot of hard work you've conquered it. You still give them a weakness, answering their question, but by answering the question the right way you've also helped convince them to hire you by showing your dedication to self-improvement.
Again, never ever lie, but taking a few minutes to think of common, difficult questions and good answers to them will help your chances immensely.
First, you don't have to find a prejudicial error to appeal. If you did, every single appeal would win. All you have to do is allege a prejudicial error. As another poster has commented, this is at most a speedbump, not a hurdle.
Second, the right to a jury trial isn't reserved in all cases. Essentially, you get a right to jury trial if a judge decides that your case is sufficiently similar to certain grounds for suit that existed in Merry Olde England back in the 1700s (no, I didn't just make that up). The thing is, judges aren't historians and thus the vast majority of them have no idea whether current cases are sufficiently analogous to the ones from the 1700s. These cases make for surprisingly entertaining reading as you watch the judges muddle through history, logic, and law trying to decide if there is a right to jury trial.
It seems to me to be a misperception among some of the introverts hereabouts that extroverts don't really care. We're superficial people. We can talk for hours without saying a darn thing. There are certainly people like that out there, but they are a distinct minority of extroverts.
Take for example when I see someone and ask "How was your weekend?" Sure, it's a common everyday thing to ask someone how their weekend was. Introverts may see this question as a pointless, mildly annoying bit of social nicety. But if a friend tells me they had a good weekend that genuinely makes my day a little brighter. If they didn't then I want to hear about it to see if there's anything I can do to make them feel better. Extroverts, in general, talk because we care, even if it seems superficial.
With regard to spewing hot air, it seems to me that some introverts miss the fact that there is almost always deeper communication going on. I had lunch with a friend today, and I'll freely admit that we discussed nothing of substance in that hour. However, I hadn't seen her for a few weeks, so what we discussed was completely irrelevant anyway. The point of lunch was to just spend some time together and reconnect. What I was saying was "blah blah blah" and the message I was sending was "I like you and I enjoy your company." Everyone likes to hear that!
Slashdot Mirror
I remember in online games, if everyone else looks like they're lagged, it's really you that has the problem. Perhaps, when everyone else looks like an idiot... well, you know.
Basically, the man is saying that buying back shares and paying a dividend are both ways of returning money to investors. Dividends return the cash directly. Buying back shares "returns" the cash to the remaining shareholders by raising the value of their shares. Imagine Company A has assets worth $1 million and 1 million shares outstanding. Each share is worth $1. If Company A buys back 500,000 of the shares, each of the remaining 500,000 is worth $2, because the company has $1 million in assets. Because of various tax shenanigans, it can sometimes be better for the shareholders to have a buyback than a dividend. This example is oversimplified, but I hope it conveys the basics.
I actually find the opposite. Knowing that anyone can die at any time draws me in, because it makes for a more credible universe. Sometimes big, important people die from choking at dinner, but it never seems to happen in stories. Knowing that it's possible heightens the tension because there are "real" risks for the characters.
Under Stalin's rule, Cerenkov and Tamm won the 1958 Nobel Prize for Physics, as did Landau in 1962 for work carried out under Stalin, and Basov and Prokhorov in 1964.
Was it for time travel?
I think most people's feeling is that since Trent, you know, makes the music, it's cool if he gets whatever he can.
What we have here... is failure to communicate.
No opinion either way on the point you guys are discussing, but I believe it is possible to put in intentionally incorrect words without undermining credibility. All you have to do is go for false negatives. For instance, put "lkjsdflkjsaf" in as a correctly-spelled word and see if Google also accepts it as correctly spelled. Nobody is going to accidentally type that in, so you can see if the dictionary is being used without compromising its integrity.
I, too, only buy games over $50 out of interest. Gotta keep that principal growing the net worth, am I right???
I respectfully disagree, and I took my final exam in antitrust law this past Friday, so I'll toss in my $.02.
In no legal fashion or finding, are - or have - Microsoft and Apple ever been competitors. Apple's existence has _zero_ bearing on whether or not Microsoft is(/was) considered a monopoly.
Short version: The judge who decided that case was biased, and Microsoft's lawyers screwed the pooch when they appealed the decision. I wouldn't bet one red cent on that finding being repeated if the case were re-tried today.
Long version: The relevant product market (i.e. whether two firms compete with each other) is actually defined in exactly the way you dismiss at the end of your post: whether they make products that consumers view as reasonably interchangeable. The district court in the Microsoft case found they weren't competitors because the judge was biased against Microsoft and he wanted to reinforce the impression that Microsoft had a monopoly. The court had 2 justifications for finding that consumers would not switch to Macs even if Windows cost more (and therefore Windows did not compete with Mac OS): (1) increased hardware costs for Macs; and (2) difficulty of learning new programs. The first, ok I can buy (sic) that, but number 2? Additionally, Microsoft's lawyers screwed up bad when they argued this issue on appeal, essentially not even arguing the point. I put little faith in an unreviewed ruling by a biased judge. Add in the fact that the determination of whether there is competition between firms or not is highly fact-specific and evolves rapidly over time, and saying that Microsoft and Apple are not "legally" in competition is misleading at best.
Well, he may be a huge asshole, I don't see how it matters. From what I can tell Russia has enough freedom of the press for people to have a basic idea of what's going on. If they want to elect some sort of neo-Communist dictator with a penchant for radiation poisonings, isn't that their right, even if we in the US and elsewhere may not be too enthused?
That's the first argument for a progressive tax system that has ever struck me as fair. Kudos.
I used to get A's in all my high school English classes, no problem. So nothing really impressed the importance of revision on me until I took freshman writing at college. What the instructor did was have us write 5 or 6 essays throughout the semester. Then, our last (and biggest) grade was just a rewrite of one of our other papers. It was graded on improvement from the first draft, not overall quality. Then he had a conference with everyone in the class to discuss with them why their paper was better the second time. It worked quite well, too. The importance of revision was definitely the best lesson I took out of that course.
you can always restore liberties that might be temporarily infringed upon
Dude, the problem here is that never, you know, actually happens. Enjoy your stay in PMITA prison for reading Mein Kampf or whatever.
That would be considered non-elective surgery, which is a form of assault {at least common assault, and maybe ABH or even GBH if an allergic reaction or septicaemia develops} -- and therefore illegal. Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.
In other news, Mike Tyson's opponent goes to jail.
Seriously though, as neatly as this theory fits in with the Official Slashdot Interpretation of the story, it just ain't so. There's no way we'd have boxing, martial arts competition, or even pro wrestling if "you cannot consent to assault." You could fight this implanted RFID stuff, of course, but lack of consent isn't the argument you're going to want to take to court.
IANAL, BTW.
No offense, but you play MMOs to accomplish something. I don't want to accomplish something by NOT playing.
That almost made me think of something. Hmm... life priorities... videogames... damn, lost it. Oh well, off to raid BWL!
It's true this might be a little dangerous, but you know what's really dangerous? AIDS! :P
This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it
Mindless support? Do you own a TV that gets any channels besides Fox?
RTFA. Right at the start it says "it wouldn't be fair to say Doom was the first first-person shooter..." The quote in parent meant exactly what it said: Wolfenstein 3D was the game that introduced gamers to FPS games. I.e. it was the first popular one.
The American legal system does a fairly good job of tossing frivolous lawsuits. This is not to say it couldn't be improved, of course, but the fact remains. I direct your attention to the Spotlight fallacy.
Ahn'Qiraj (sp?) is a new dungeon that only opens after each server donates a large amount of in-game items to various NPCs over the course of a couple weeks. It has content that is geared mainly towards players who have both reached the level cap and joined huge "raiding" guilds. New players get almost nothing from it as far as I can tell.
I think. I was pretty confident that I knew what was going on until I read that terrible, terrible article summary. The reason the submitter brought up server stability is that players from all the 100+ servers started creating characters on the "Medivh" server in order to watch the in-game event that opens the dungeon, because Medivh finished the quest before all the other servers. Blizzard suspended new character creation on the server though, so I'm not sure if stability is still an issue or not.
Just hire Kate Moss imo.
I got an internship for this summer in November.
I would advise against the "clear honest answer" approach. Not that I advocate lying, but it's not good for you and it's not good for the company. You benefit from the job, and they benefit from the work you do for them. If you get hired everyone wins.
Say the interviewer asks you what your biggest weakness is. Are you seriously going to tell them that you hate working with people? Or you don't know anything about their main programming language? Hell no! The clear, blunt answer doesn't work. Instead of helping to convince them to hire you (which would be good for both of you), you've convinced them not to hire you. Consider the difference if you say that you used to have a problem with attention to detail, but after a lot of hard work you've conquered it. You still give them a weakness, answering their question, but by answering the question the right way you've also helped convince them to hire you by showing your dedication to self-improvement.
Again, never ever lie, but taking a few minutes to think of common, difficult questions and good answers to them will help your chances immensely.
paulsgre wins the thread! There is no need for any further posts. Which I guess would include thi
Couple things.
First, you don't have to find a prejudicial error to appeal. If you did, every single appeal would win. All you have to do is allege a prejudicial error. As another poster has commented, this is at most a speedbump, not a hurdle.
Second, the right to a jury trial isn't reserved in all cases. Essentially, you get a right to jury trial if a judge decides that your case is sufficiently similar to certain grounds for suit that existed in Merry Olde England back in the 1700s (no, I didn't just make that up). The thing is, judges aren't historians and thus the vast majority of them have no idea whether current cases are sufficiently analogous to the ones from the 1700s. These cases make for surprisingly entertaining reading as you watch the judges muddle through history, logic, and law trying to decide if there is a right to jury trial.
I am an extrovert. No, wait! Hear me out!
It seems to me to be a misperception among some of the introverts hereabouts that extroverts don't really care. We're superficial people. We can talk for hours without saying a darn thing. There are certainly people like that out there, but they are a distinct minority of extroverts.
Take for example when I see someone and ask "How was your weekend?" Sure, it's a common everyday thing to ask someone how their weekend was. Introverts may see this question as a pointless, mildly annoying bit of social nicety. But if a friend tells me they had a good weekend that genuinely makes my day a little brighter. If they didn't then I want to hear about it to see if there's anything I can do to make them feel better. Extroverts, in general, talk because we care, even if it seems superficial.
With regard to spewing hot air, it seems to me that some introverts miss the fact that there is almost always deeper communication going on. I had lunch with a friend today, and I'll freely admit that we discussed nothing of substance in that hour. However, I hadn't seen her for a few weeks, so what we discussed was completely irrelevant anyway. The point of lunch was to just spend some time together and reconnect. What I was saying was "blah blah blah" and the message I was sending was "I like you and I enjoy your company." Everyone likes to hear that!
--
I typed this sig manually. Go me!