As such, it is the shareholders who ultimately decide upon the pay of the CEO.
Hah, hah. Very funny. Shareholders have so little rights these days and boards are stacked with the CEO's buddies in ways that make it such that CEO pay is almost impossible for shareholders to control. Do you really think it was in shareholders' interest for the former CEO of Home Depot to get a $200M pay-off?
You come from the planet where all algorithms parallelize neatly, eh? I've heard that they've cured the common cold and the second law of thermodynamics there, too...
Because supercomputers are not massively parallel computers... Oh wait....
We know CMOS scaling is coming to an end, maybe not at 14nm or 10nm but at the end of this decade we're approaching the size of silicon atoms and lattices.
I have heard that statement made many times since about the mid-80s or at the very latest, early '90s -- not the exact size, but the prediction of the imminent end to CMOS scaling. Perhaps it is true now, as we approach single molecule transistors.
Her first consultation with us turned up a $3,400 deduction we had missed a couple of years back.
And some years ago, I proved to my accountant that she was wrong about a deduction she claimed we were not entitled to. So what's your point? Two anecdotes don't prove anything.
You place a bet with an unscrupulous bookmaker that a certain person will live beyond the next month. When that doesn't happen, you have to pay the bet.
why did the award the contract to the same old cronies who have failed before?
Question: where are the really high-traffic websites primarily developed? Ans. West coast (Netflix, Youtube, Google, Yahoo, etc.). Heck, even Oracle is on the West coast. So if the expertise is on the West coast, why use east coast and Canadian companies with no history of successfully building (in time, on-budget) a high-traffic, complex website to develop and deploy a website that is a critical component of the legislation that you regard as your legacy achievement?
Wow, an app that can search its own information! And use that cool web resources like Wikipedia!
So he is leeching off the work of many people and resources provided to a non-profit in order to make money? Way to go for someone so investing in intellectual property rights!
I hope the app provides the appropriate attributions for photos and such licensed under a creative commons license.
I am not. Reason: how would the pilots use their guns? In order to use a gun the pilots need to open the cockpit door. Think about what could happen if the cockpit doors were opened during an attempted hijacking.
In the United States, anybody can sue anybody else for anything, regardless of merit, and have a reasonable chance of winning. It only takes time and money.
Not if the second "anybody" is the government. Unless the government consents to being sued (in othe words, there is a law allowing citzens to sue the government over that particular injury) the government will merely plead sovereign immunity and the suit will the thrown out of court.
Meh. I have several drives with no reallocations, but I also have several with many reallocations... and they've been ticking along that way for years.
Did you miss the Google study from a few years ago that showed that non-zero reallocated sectors (as displayed by the S.M.A.R.T. data) was the most reliable predictor of imminent drive failure?
I guess what it boils down it, is that I simply don't agree with that. I would instead say that companies create value, which can become wealth if (and only if) consumers choose to exchange their wealth for the value in the companies product.
So, if one single investment might not be profitable, no investment can ever be profitable?
The whole purpose is to spend money on something that becomes more valuable than the money spent. Hence creating an increase in overall wealth.
That's the purpose, but it isn't guaranteed to be successful.
Agreed. There is risk involved. But overall for a growing economy, the average investment returns more than was put in.
In the end, my assertion is simply put. For one to become more wealthy, that wealth has to come from somewhere, typically the consumer.
Only using your rather odd measure of wealth -- which is really individual relative wealth. In real economics, the average weath of individuals has increased and the total wealth in the economy has increased over time (but not monotonically). Simply put, increasing total wealth means that for one person to be more wealthy does not require others to be poorer. Many years ago the site manager at the company where I worked put it quite succinctly: the purpose of companies is the creation and distribution of wealth.
Increasing wealth disparity means that the typical person is becoming relatively less wealthy.
I would say that no the total wealth hasn't changed at that point in time because the bridge/factory took investment
I think that you have misunderstood the concept of investment. The whole purpose is to spend money on something that becomes more valuable than the money spent. Hence creating an increase in overall wealth. It's value may be based on its future capacity to produce products and not just the value of the machines, land and buildings.
So let me define mine. I consider wealth to be a measurement of what percentage of the economy you own.
Tha'ts a measure of relative personal wealth. But that's not very useful because we were talking about total wealth in the economy.
They can't, because it would devalue the dollar and cause runaway inflation... because there IS a fixed amount of wealth to be had.
Excessive money printing will cause problems, yes.
because there IS a fixed amount of wealth to be had.
So, if someoe constructs a bridge or a builds a factory, the total wealth hasn't changed? According to your economic theory, the total wealth today is the same as when? The founding of the Union?
But in the end, yes, you do need to explain how there isn't a fixed amount of US dollars because you can look at the federal reserve and see a specific number in circulation.
Hah, ha. Yes, there is a fixed amount at any given time in the sense that when driving down the highway at 60mph, I am at a fixed point at any given time. It's just that at the next point in time, the fixed point (amount) has changed.
Sure the government can and regularly does print new money (about $500 million a day, but most of it is to replace old money) but when new money is added to the system, it is effectively slightly lowering the value of all other dollars.
So you agree with me that the amount of money in circulation is changing all the time.
Suppose tomorrow, I trip over a brick of gold which no one has ever seen before. This wasn't wealth "added" to the economy, that new brick actually caused every other bit of gold to lose value by some incredibly small amount.
Here you are trivially substituting gold for money, which works because the intrinsic value of gold is less than people will pay for it because of its use as a medium of exchange. But your argument is flawed because it assumes that the value of GDP never changes. If GDP increases, money can be printed without the purchasing power of a single dollar dropping an amount equivalent to the fractional growth of dollars. Essentially, your argument is circular.
You're right in that it's not a closed system. Certainly there are outside factors which matter. Money comes in and out. But I think that the poster simply used the wrong word. A more accurate way to describe the system is IMO "zero-sum".
Firstly, the idea that there is a fixed amount of US dollars isn't remotely true. Do I really need to explain this? Secondly, the issue is not how much currency that exists, but what happens to it: is it sitting in a bank acocunt somewhere, or being spent? If it is being spent, how quickly is it circulating (what is the velocity of money)?
This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.
This is a simplistic and hence inaccurate view. Government spending on things like large infrastructure projects can contribute to increasing the overall wealth of the nation. In this case, reduing spending can result in reducing the wealth of the nation.
Furthermore, providing a safety net for people (welfare) can allow people to take more risks, so the population can be more mobile, more entrepreneurial, etc.. Such risk taking can result in new businesses and increased GDP.
If you think otherwise, let me suggest that you move to Somalia. I expect tax rates are very low there.
You've got a Quad-Core ARM running at twice their Ghz and you barely post benchmarks ahead of a Dual-Core A7, you know you're stupid for buying one.
No. you are stupid for basing your decisions on factors that don't affect your usage of the device. All that matters is how fast it brings up web pages, runs apps, etc., battery life, size and other factors such as features the OS and ecosystem provides. The clock rate of the processor is not relevant to the user.
I have never understood this. Windows users are used to installing drivers for each new piece of hardware. Why not bundle an ext4 driver? The device could even have a small FAT partiton (without the patented parts of FAT) that contains the driver for the larger ext4 partition.
Manufacturers have allowed the situation to exist.
Microsoft isn't patent trolling here. They would be patent trolling if they were simply holding onto broadly defined patents to use them offensively. The patents in question, which I believe relate to data storage and file systems, have been used by Microsoft for a very long time and have been challenged unsuccessfully before.
Citation? B&N challenged the patents and it resulted in a partially sealed settlement. The patents were judged on their merits.
Also, how can it not be trolling when Microsoft approaches manufacturers with "Android/Linux violates our patents, but we won't tell you which patents"?
Slashdot Mirror
Hah, hah. Very funny. Shareholders have so little rights these days and boards are stacked with the CEO's buddies in ways that make it such that CEO pay is almost impossible for shareholders to control. Do you really think it was in shareholders' interest for the former CEO of Home Depot to get a $200M pay-off?
'91? Youngster. In my household, we have a '71 and a '57.
Because supercomputers are not massively parallel computers ... Oh wait....
I have heard that statement made many times since about the mid-80s or at the very latest, early '90s -- not the exact size, but the prediction of the imminent end to CMOS scaling. Perhaps it is true now, as we approach single molecule transistors.
And some years ago, I proved to my accountant that she was wrong about a deduction she claimed we were not entitled to. So what's your point? Two anecdotes don't prove anything.
No true scotsman ......
Agatha Christie: The Pale Horse.
You place a bet with an unscrupulous bookmaker that a certain person will live beyond the next month. When that doesn't happen, you have to pay the bet.
why did the award the contract to the same old cronies who have failed before?
Question: where are the really high-traffic websites primarily developed? Ans. West coast (Netflix, Youtube, Google, Yahoo, etc.). Heck, even Oracle is on the West coast. So if the expertise is on the West coast, why use east coast and Canadian companies with no history of successfully building (in time, on-budget) a high-traffic, complex website to develop and deploy a website that is a critical component of the legislation that you regard as your legacy achievement?
So he is leeching off the work of many people and resources provided to a non-profit in order to make money? Way to go for someone so investing in intellectual property rights!
I hope the app provides the appropriate attributions for photos and such licensed under a creative commons license.
More like Gen. Turgidson.
Openness is good, yes. But what the NSA will release will be misdirection, dissembling, disingenuousness and lies.
I am not. Reason: how would the pilots use their guns? In order to use a gun the pilots need to open the cockpit door. Think about what could happen if the cockpit doors were opened during an attempted hijacking.
Not if the second "anybody" is the government. Unless the government consents to being sued (in othe words, there is a law allowing citzens to sue the government over that particular injury) the government will merely plead sovereign immunity and the suit will the thrown out of court.
Did you miss the Google study from a few years ago that showed that non-zero reallocated sectors (as displayed by the S.M.A.R.T. data) was the most reliable predictor of imminent drive failure?
So, if one single investment might not be profitable, no investment can ever be profitable?
Agreed. There is risk involved. But overall for a growing economy, the average investment returns more than was put in.
Only using your rather odd measure of wealth -- which is really individual relative wealth. In real economics, the average weath of individuals has increased and the total wealth in the economy has increased over time (but not monotonically). Simply put, increasing total wealth means that for one person to be more wealthy does not require others to be poorer. Many years ago the site manager at the company where I worked put it quite succinctly: the purpose of companies is the creation and distribution of wealth.
Increasing wealth disparity means that the typical person is becoming relatively less wealthy.
I think that you have misunderstood the concept of investment. The whole purpose is to spend money on something that becomes more valuable than the money spent. Hence creating an increase in overall wealth. It's value may be based on its future capacity to produce products and not just the value of the machines, land and buildings.
Tha'ts a measure of relative personal wealth. But that's not very useful because we were talking about total wealth in the economy.
Excessive money printing will cause problems, yes.
So, if someoe constructs a bridge or a builds a factory, the total wealth hasn't changed? According to your economic theory, the total wealth today is the same as when? The founding of the Union?
Hah, ha. Yes, there is a fixed amount at any given time in the sense that when driving down the highway at 60mph, I am at a fixed point at any given time. It's just that at the next point in time, the fixed point (amount) has changed.
So you agree with me that the amount of money in circulation is changing all the time.
Here you are trivially substituting gold for money, which works because the intrinsic value of gold is less than people will pay for it because of its use as a medium of exchange. But your argument is flawed because it assumes that the value of GDP never changes. If GDP increases, money can be printed without the purchasing power of a single dollar dropping an amount equivalent to the fractional growth of dollars. Essentially, your argument is circular.
Firstly, the idea that there is a fixed amount of US dollars isn't remotely true. Do I really need to explain this? Secondly, the issue is not how much currency that exists, but what happens to it: is it sitting in a bank acocunt somewhere, or being spent? If it is being spent, how quickly is it circulating (what is the velocity of money)?
This is a simplistic and hence inaccurate view. Government spending on things like large infrastructure projects can contribute to increasing the overall wealth of the nation. In this case, reduing spending can result in reducing the wealth of the nation.
Furthermore, providing a safety net for people (welfare) can allow people to take more risks, so the population can be more mobile, more entrepreneurial, etc.. Such risk taking can result in new businesses and increased GDP.
If you think otherwise, let me suggest that you move to Somalia. I expect tax rates are very low there.
No. you are stupid for basing your decisions on factors that don't affect your usage of the device. All that matters is how fast it brings up web pages, runs apps, etc., battery life, size and other factors such as features the OS and ecosystem provides. The clock rate of the processor is not relevant to the user.
It has existed for decades. It's called TCP.
Did you RTFA? This new protocol appears to have little to no advantages over TCP and significant disadvantages under some circumstances.
I have never understood this. Windows users are used to installing drivers for each new piece of hardware. Why not bundle an ext4 driver? The device could even have a small FAT partiton (without the patented parts of FAT) that contains the driver for the larger ext4 partition.
Manufacturers have allowed the situation to exist.
Citation? B&N challenged the patents and it resulted in a partially sealed settlement. The patents were judged on their merits.
Also, how can it not be trolling when Microsoft approaches manufacturers with "Android/Linux violates our patents, but we won't tell you which patents"?