This is a contradiction: The company IS losing money... the real loser are the other share holders.
If the company buys new shares to give to the employees, it is an expense, and as far as I know, has always been treated that way.
Stock options from newly printed stock are a payment from the shareholders (who's share of the company is diluted) to the employees. The company is just an intermediary, and does not lose any money (outside of printing costs). It's no different than if all of the stockholders decided to give 10% of their stock to someone, the company doesn't lose anything. Saying that they do lose something seems like lying about revenue.
This isn't ripping off stockholders as long as they state that they printed more shares.
Actually, forget what I said and just read the second bulleted paragraph here. They state the issue much more elequently than I can. "Unlike other forms of compensation, stock options impose no financial drain on a company."
Or, from a less biased source: "Every other expense decreases the net worth of the corporation, whereas stock options, when exercised, actually increase it."
Just so someone tells the other side of the story.:)
The same is true of most people's attitude toward government: as long as it works OK and it is semi-tolerable, they don't give a damn about improving the situation or worse, don't care about the government and how it runs at all when it is probably one of the strongest influences on their life.
Amen! Of course, those of us that do want to improve the situation never seem to agree on how to do so. Get three intelligent, informed people who are interested in politics together, pick an issue, and you'll get four different opinions.
I see this as only catering to the clinically insane. The rich, clinically insane, but insane nonetheless.
Yeah, people that buy weird things must be insane./sarcasm
Oh, well, I suppose if there's cash to be made, why not make it?
"Why not indeed!?!" -Bender/humorous quotes
1. Is this stupider than feeding the original cat caviar three meals a day? It's their money.
2. "Diciplined" people accept death? I never thought of 'diciplined' and 'wussy' as synonyms.
3. When vets/genetic researchers/Jurassic Park people use this type of technology to do something good/useful (OK, scratch the JP people), and it's easier/cheaper to do since the businesses already exist, what will you say then?
Also, this may not be perfect, but why not annoy the Grim Reaper a little, right?:)
I would rather be incomplete rather than inconsistant; it's Ok to say "I don't know". Calculators that can't divide by zero are acceptable, but calculators that try to (and thus give inconsistant results) should be thrown away.
Not that I want to be too much like a calculator, but better that than a random number generator.:)
I should point out that the shareholders are losing money, not the company. The distinction may seem trivial, but there is a big difference:
Let's say my company made a million dollars, and then printed enough stock certificates to double the number of shares. The company still has the million, but the shareholders now own half as much of the company as they did before. The company didn't spend any money (except printing costs, ect.).
The shareholders should be told how many outstanding shares there are and how many were (or will be) printed and when. But to say that the company lost money when they acually have more dollars (or more equipment, or less debt, or whatever) is really a lie. As the article says it needs to be disclosed, I just think it should be on a different line of their quarterly report than their profit/loss.
Of course, if they buy the stock from someone (rather than printing more), then that is an expense, just like when they buy anything else.
Deterrence value of any punishment is weak, because it is not sure. Most criminals expect to get away with their crimes.
If they were deterred from commiting a crime, then they wouldn't be a criminal.:)
It also doesn't shock me that criminals were not deterred from committing crime (for some reason or other).
incarceration is to deter people from
incarceration is to prevent people from
I will stand by my statement that atheism is a belief system.
Catholicism or Secular Humanism cover enough ground to be 'belief systems', but I have trouble calling something a 'system' when it can be completely described by a single sentence.
ANY statement about their existence or otherwise must be a leap of faith of some sort.
What if the intelligent design creationists are right, and we can prove that the complexity of the universe requires that a 'higher power' exits? That wouldn't exactly be faith, would it?
Just so you know, I don't think you should have been modded as a troll. I just don't quite understand where you're coming from, as you're using word in ways that are new to me.:)
According to the original definitions, agnostics are a subset of atheists, though 'athiest' has been moving toward your definition. If a person is using the original definition, I could see them getting quite frustrated with you.:)
/nitpick
Believing that a god(s) do not exist is an act of faith.
That just seems odd to me. Do I need to have faith the believe that hobbits (chakras, dragons, hobbits, invisible pink whatevers) don't exist? Then everyone has faith in the non-existance of a great number of things, even things they have never heard of before!
Do you believe that aliens will attack tomorrow? You can't say you know for sure that they won't, but you aren't ready to pack up survival gear and head for the hills (just in case the do), either. So you really aren't completely 'without knowledge'.
Note that there are some faith-based athiests (just like most theists, it's the way they were raised), I just think most of them (the other 90%) aren't basing their beliefs on faith.
The same is true for theists, but I think the percentages are reversed.
And your quantum computing analogy is apt. Just because we've had success with electron-spin computation so far, does not mean that we sould ignore photon-polarization. It might be faster, or better at quantum encrpyption (works over fiber optics?!?). We just don't know enough to say that 'This will never be useful'.
Not to be rude, but: Hey, Orville! Trains work great, lets work on those. Those crazy flying machines just crash and kill people.
To paraphrase your argument: The most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. therefore exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time.
Which logical fallacy is that?
We both agree that adult and embryonic stem cells are different. To you that means look only at the most promising one, and ignore the less promising one. To me that just means that we should look at both, since they may be better at different things.
Would you agree with the following? But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from antibiotics. So exploring stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
I mean, antibiotics have proven cures for how many diseases?
Cord blood stem cells are different than most 'adult' stem cells (more like in-between embryonic and adult). Also, if they could have used cells from her body, why go dig up cord blood, especially when using cells from her body would prove the treatment useful for more people (like me with no cord blood)?
Adult stem cells exist to produce every type of cell in your body.
Great, but does that prove that they can do everything that embryonic ones can do (whole organs, a whole arm/leg)? Not really, and I want to know for sure.
If this can't fix the problem, then neither can embryonic stem cells.
But you don't know that for sure. It may make sense, it may feel right, but you still don't know until you try.
So here's what I've gotten so far:
Test animals when possible - great idea
Don't stop looking at adult stem cells - don't know why you wouldn't
We will be able to use adult in every case we could use embryonic - too stong a claim for an undeveloped area ('might' be able to, but not 'will')
The claim from the left was that: federal funding was NECESSARY and that ONLY embryonic stem cells - often referred to as "stem cells" - are suitable.
I'm no expert, but I do pay attention to issues like this. I have never ever heard someone make that claim.
I have heard people say that we need to research embryonic stems cells because they are different than adult stem cells, and thus may treat some things better, or have different uses, but that's a completely different argument.
Isn't a well-educated moral debate better than a knee-jerk moral debate?
And isn't a knee-jerk moral debate better than no moral debate?
More seriously, we'll never know "if adult stem cells can do everything (that embryonic stem cells can do)" if we don't know what embryonic stem cells can do. And how long should we wait for a cure (while people are dying/suffering) before we 'give in' and do research on them?
You're free to blame my parents for this, but I don't have any frozen cord blood. So, in the right situation, I need to:
A. Clone a baby and take its 'adult' stem cells - create a child for the sole purpose of helping me/saving my life
B. Develop an embryonic technique, clone an embryo and use its cells - abort an embryo for the sole purpose...
C. Use someone else's cord blood, and hope that crazy ammounts of immuno-suppression drugs keep my body from killing off the cells that are trying to save my life
For me, A is completely unacceptable. Creating a person without any real desire to nurture and take care of them seems completely immoral.
C would be OK, but if I die of a simple infection because I have no immune system, what's the point?
B is uncomfortable for me, but not wholely immoral. Plus, if there's a Constitutional right (in the U.S., at least) to let people have abortions for any reason at all (including "the fetus is the wrong sex!") I don't see any legal means to stop an abortion that also saves a life
The arguments that simply shout, in your words - "OMFG EMBREYONIC ONES R BETTAR" - may seem stupid, but they do have a point. By your own admission embryonic and adult stem cells do act differently, and that fact that they are different is reason enough to continue research on both. What if the next cure/treatment is exactly the opposite, impossible with adult stem cells, but easy with embryonic? For all we know, we're one breakthrough from that senario.
On the other had, you have an excellent point about animal testing. We do everything else with animals first, why not these types of treatments?
A laissez-faire capitalist system results in boom times and depressions.
The Fed attempts to ameliorate the cycle, rather successfully in my view.
Ugh, sure. Fed starts up in 1913, then there's a long period of high growth and wild speculation, and then a depression. A depression so big, so long and so widespread that it's the only one we call the "Great Depression". We even named a period of our history after it (Depression Era).
>If you really want to do something about corruption, remove the temptation. Eliminate the power, and there will be no abuse of power.
And yet, ironically, you advocate doing this by voting a specific candidate into government office through a democratic process.
I think that (for the most part) he was talking about reducing the economic power of the government, not chucking the whole thing. Besides, if he was talking about eliminating the government, the appropriate way to get rid of it is to vote people into office that will dismantle it. That may be ironic, but it's the right way to do it.
Obviously you understand that your idealistic view isn't even self-realizable. The only other option would be a disorganized, anarchic revolt against the government
No, it isn't! If you want the government to do X, vote for it. That still holds true if X is "dismantle yourself", or even "get rid of the right to vote".
(since you plainly display your contempt for all power structures).
He likes charities and companies, so how is that "contempt for all power structures"?
Slashdot Mirror
Got a cite for that?
Yndrd1984
If the company buys new shares to give to the employees, it is an expense, and as far as I know, has always been treated that way.
Stock options from newly printed stock are a payment from the shareholders (who's share of the company is diluted) to the employees. The company is just an intermediary, and does not lose any money (outside of printing costs). It's no different than if all of the stockholders decided to give 10% of their stock to someone, the company doesn't lose anything. Saying that they do lose something seems like lying about revenue.
This isn't ripping off stockholders as long as they state that they printed more shares.
Actually, forget what I said and just read the second bulleted paragraph here. They state the issue much more elequently than I can. "Unlike other forms of compensation, stock options impose no financial drain on a company."
Or, from a less biased source: "Every other expense decreases the net worth of the corporation, whereas stock options, when exercised, actually increase it."
Just so someone tells the other side of the story. :)
Yndrd1984
And they smell bad.
I might also call them ugly, but that would be cruel.
- Yndrd1984
Yndrd1984
Amen! Of course, those of us that do want to improve the situation never seem to agree on how to do so. Get three intelligent, informed people who are interested in politics together, pick an issue, and you'll get four different opinions.
Yndrd1984
Yeah, people that buy weird things must be insane. /sarcasm
Oh, well, I suppose if there's cash to be made, why not make it?
"Why not indeed!?!" -Bender /humorous quotes
1. Is this stupider than feeding the original cat caviar three meals a day? It's their money.
2. "Diciplined" people accept death? I never thought of 'diciplined' and 'wussy' as synonyms.
3. When vets/genetic researchers/Jurassic Park people use this type of technology to do something good/useful (OK, scratch the JP people), and it's easier/cheaper to do since the businesses already exist, what will you say then?
Also, this may not be perfect, but why not annoy the Grim Reaper a little, right? :)
Yndrd1984
Of course his old machine was 4 years old, and the new one looks pretty, but still...
Yndrd1984
Not that I want to be too much like a calculator, but better that than a random number generator. :)
Yndrd1984
I should point out that the shareholders are losing money, not the company. The distinction may seem trivial, but there is a big difference:
Let's say my company made a million dollars, and then printed enough stock certificates to double the number of shares. The company still has the million, but the shareholders now own half as much of the company as they did before. The company didn't spend any money (except printing costs, ect.).
The shareholders should be told how many outstanding shares there are and how many were (or will be) printed and when. But to say that the company lost money when they acually have more dollars (or more equipment, or less debt, or whatever) is really a lie. As the article says it needs to be disclosed, I just think it should be on a different line of their quarterly report than their profit/loss.
Of course, if they buy the stock from someone (rather than printing more), then that is an expense, just like when they buy anything else.
Yndrd1984
And I was right, you did have a good point. :)
Yndrd1984
If they were deterred from commiting a crime, then they wouldn't be a criminal. :)
It also doesn't shock me that criminals were not deterred from committing crime (for some reason or other).
incarceration is to deter people from
incarceration is to prevent people from
Given the definition of deter is "To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt", I'm missing the distinction.
I think you do have a good point, I'm just not catching it. Could you elaborate?
Yndrd1984
Catholicism or Secular Humanism cover enough ground to be 'belief systems', but I have trouble calling something a 'system' when it can be completely described by a single sentence.
ANY statement about their existence or otherwise must be a leap of faith of some sort.
What if the intelligent design creationists are right, and we can prove that the complexity of the universe requires that a 'higher power' exits? That wouldn't exactly be faith, would it?
Just so you know, I don't think you should have been modded as a troll. I just don't quite understand where you're coming from, as you're using word in ways that are new to me. :)
Yndrd1984
Yes, theist means having a diety (more literally: with god), atheist means not having a diety (not with god). Like the words moral and amoral:
Amoral: Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
According to the original definitions, agnostics are a subset of atheists, though 'athiest' has been moving toward your definition. If a person is using the original definition, I could see them getting quite frustrated with you. :)
Believing that a god(s) do not exist is an act of faith.
That just seems odd to me. Do I need to have faith the believe that hobbits (chakras, dragons, hobbits, invisible pink whatevers) don't exist? Then everyone has faith in the non-existance of a great number of things, even things they have never heard of before!
Do you believe that aliens will attack tomorrow? You can't say you know for sure that they won't, but you aren't ready to pack up survival gear and head for the hills (just in case the do), either. So you really aren't completely 'without knowledge'.
Note that there are some faith-based athiests (just like most theists, it's the way they were raised), I just think most of them (the other 90%) aren't basing their beliefs on faith.
The same is true for theists, but I think the percentages are reversed.
Yndrd1984
I thought he was calling himself an idiot for replying to flame bait. Yndrd1984
And your quantum computing analogy is apt. Just because we've had success with electron-spin computation so far, does not mean that we sould ignore photon-polarization. It might be faster, or better at quantum encrpyption (works over fiber optics?!?). We just don't know enough to say that 'This will never be useful'.
Not to be rude, but: Hey, Orville! Trains work great, lets work on those. Those crazy flying machines just crash and kill people.
The most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. therefore exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time.
Which logical fallacy is that?
We both agree that adult and embryonic stem cells are different. To you that means look only at the most promising one, and ignore the less promising one. To me that just means that we should look at both, since they may be better at different things.
Would you agree with the following?
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from antibiotics. So exploring stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
I mean, antibiotics have proven cures for how many diseases?
Cord blood stem cells are different than most 'adult' stem cells (more like in-between embryonic and adult). Also, if they could have used cells from her body, why go dig up cord blood, especially when using cells from her body would prove the treatment useful for more people (like me with no cord blood)?
Adult stem cells exist to produce every type of cell in your body.
Great, but does that prove that they can do everything that embryonic ones can do (whole organs, a whole arm/leg)? Not really, and I want to know for sure.
If this can't fix the problem, then neither can embryonic stem cells.
But you don't know that for sure. It may make sense, it may feel right, but you still don't know until you try.
So here's what I've gotten so far:
Test animals when possible - great idea
Don't stop looking at adult stem cells - don't know why you wouldn't
We will be able to use adult in every case we could use embryonic - too stong a claim for an undeveloped area ('might' be able to, but not 'will')
I'm no expert, but I do pay attention to issues like this. I have never ever heard someone make that claim.
I have heard people say that we need to research embryonic stems cells because they are different than adult stem cells, and thus may treat some things better, or have different uses, but that's a completely different argument.
And isn't a knee-jerk moral debate better than no moral debate?
More seriously, we'll never know "if adult stem cells can do everything (that embryonic stem cells can do)" if we don't know what embryonic stem cells can do. And how long should we wait for a cure (while people are dying/suffering) before we 'give in' and do research on them?
A. Clone a baby and take its 'adult' stem cells - create a child for the sole purpose of helping me/saving my life
B. Develop an embryonic technique, clone an embryo and use its cells - abort an embryo for the sole purpose...
C. Use someone else's cord blood, and hope that crazy ammounts of immuno-suppression drugs keep my body from killing off the cells that are trying to save my life
For me, A is completely unacceptable. Creating a person without any real desire to nurture and take care of them seems completely immoral.
C would be OK, but if I die of a simple infection because I have no immune system, what's the point?
B is uncomfortable for me, but not wholely immoral. Plus, if there's a Constitutional right (in the U.S., at least) to let people have abortions for any reason at all (including "the fetus is the wrong sex!") I don't see any legal means to stop an abortion that also saves a life
The arguments that simply shout, in your words - "OMFG EMBREYONIC ONES R BETTAR" - may seem stupid, but they do have a point. By your own admission embryonic and adult stem cells do act differently, and that fact that they are different is reason enough to continue research on both. What if the next cure/treatment is exactly the opposite, impossible with adult stem cells, but easy with embryonic? For all we know, we're one breakthrough from that senario.
On the other had, you have an excellent point about animal testing. We do everything else with animals first, why not these types of treatments?
Guess what I'm gettin' for Christmas!
-Yndrd1984
There's this thing called "sarcasm"... -yndrd1984
The Fed attempts to ameliorate the cycle, rather successfully in my view.
Ugh, sure. Fed starts up in 1913, then there's a long period of high growth and wild speculation, and then a depression. A depression so big, so long and so widespread that it's the only one we call the "Great Depression". We even named a period of our history after it (Depression Era).
What about the other half of our monkey-making factories?
-Yndrd1984
And yet, ironically, you advocate doing this by voting a specific candidate into government office through a democratic process.
I think that (for the most part) he was talking about reducing the economic power of the government, not chucking the whole thing. Besides, if he was talking about eliminating the government, the appropriate way to get rid of it is to vote people into office that will dismantle it. That may be ironic, but it's the right way to do it.
Obviously you understand that your idealistic view isn't even self-realizable. The only other option would be a disorganized, anarchic revolt against the government
No, it isn't! If you want the government to do X, vote for it. That still holds true if X is "dismantle yourself", or even "get rid of the right to vote".
(since you plainly display your contempt for all power structures).
He likes charities and companies, so how is that "contempt for all power structures"?