That's generally true, but not always. It's called the "initial" public offering because it's not the only public offering. I'm not sure what the rules are, but companies can issue new stock. The idea isn't that you own a percentage of the companies assets, and therefore stock, once issued, is fixed. No, the idea is that all stock issued together represent the total assets of the company. Therefore, if the company sells $1000 of new stock, the company now has $1000 of new assets (initially as cash). The pie has grown, theoretically, and more people have a piece of it.
The SEC estimates that for amounts under $100,000, the fees will be 12.9% to 39% of the money raised...
Maybe it's bad writing, but this doesn't say "the cost of these services". It says "the fees". In other words, the amount required to file the paperwork and have the SEC review it. If this can be read literally, then it's theft, pure and simple.
What is your problem? You're acting like I insulted your mother.
Dude, this is why people frequently don't want to talk about politics. I'd rather have a conversation about where I'm wrong, than exchange insults. It's not healthy. This is the Internet. You're going to be smarter than somebody here. Don't take it as a personal insult when we're not.
No, that is not "my problem". I haven't "defined" anything. I've described the general behavior and some of the beliefs of people who typically fly those banners in the US.
You're overreacting. Why don't you tell me what you mean?
I don't undestand. What's so strange about being a Libertarian Socialist?
I'm about to paint with a very broad brush. I mean no insult to anybody.
Socialist generally try to create a utopia through targeted policies of taxation and welfare spending. In other words, they are for redistributing wealth and government intervention.
Libertarians, on the other hand, generally believe they can create a utopia despite government intrusion... and the less of it, the better.
These seem quite contradictory. To answer your question, this is why it seems strange. Ultimately, though, it depends on what you mean by the terms. There are all sorts of ideas that are called Socialist, and all sorts of ideas that are called Libertarian.
Some say that Martin Luther didn't know what he was doing either. He posts some intellectual ramblings on his local bulletin board and suddenly he has a full scale revolution on his hands.
He (probably) didn't mean to start a new sect, but he absolutely knew that he was rebelling against the hierarchy in a big way.
There are very few socialists in the USA. The politics are so distorted that some people assume that "liberal" means left wing. It doesn't. It means politically right in the middle.
No, it doesn't. You sound like you're regurgitating something you were spoon fed in college. I don't care what it meant at one point. I do care what it means today.
"Liberal" means lose, freely, without limitation, etc. "Conservative", means limited, restrained, cautious, etc. A true liberal sees no need to be hampered by bad decisions made in the past. Progress can be made, things can be fixed. A true conservative, on the other hand, sees no need to fix things that aren't broken. Why experiment if something is working? You might break it.
Most of us are not one, nor the other. We're a bit of both, some more to one side or the other.
Here's the important bit that you need to wrap your head around: Liberal and Conservative aren't points on the political spectrum. They're directions. (Most people overlook this, including most professors.)
The common usage of these terms has varied wildly over the years. The fundamental definition of the words hasn't changed, but the tyrants, liars, and impostors over the years have all used them to prop up their own brand of crazy. Today, those words depend almost entirely on which country you're in. In the US, they mean "acceptable to Democrats" and "acceptable to Republicans". No, those aren't the actual definitions of those words, but no other country in the world uses strictly correct definitions for them either. Remember, they're directions, not destinations. (pointing towards change, and away from change)
Greenpeacers see this as a good thing?? Surely you mean "big oil"?
No "greenpeacer" would see these sort of tax reliefs on fuel-hungry cars as a Good Thing, surely. Because that is precisely what a milage-based tax is.
I don't think they mean this as a substitute for the gas tax, but additional to it. This isn't about policy, but money for the state coffers. Eventually (sooner than we think), it will be about NSA style civilian monitoring. (even if they claim otherwise)
You are right, though. From an environmental perspective, if you want to encourage both less driving, and fuel efficiency, gas tax is the way to go. Mileage tax only encourages less driving. Compared to gas tax, it permits fuel hogs to guzzle to their hearts' content.
You don't think I thought of that? I don't know what he wants to do, but I assumed the possibility that he might not know that LibreOffice search supports RE searches, and that it might possibly be useful to him. I don't know that it will be, but I also don't know that it won't be. It depends on what he's doing.
There is no contradiction there. Without wysiwyg, you have no way to know if what you've got is good enough, or not. You've got to go through the process or rendering, changing, rendering, etc, until you reach "good enough". With wysiwyg, you instantly know if something isn't good enough. It's a lot faster, especially if you make a little bit of effort to deal with styles. The final product won't be perfect, but it will be good.
And that link is a rather stupid and opinionated rant, quite frankly. It's not a technical anything by any reasonable standard. That said, my post above doesn't even disagree with his conclusion:
And this is all I’m really asking for. You can have a WYSIWYG editor, but give me a way to actually use the markup language that it uses internally. This way both [particularly fastidious geeks] and [everyone else] will be happy.
And everyone wants to see their own special interest declared "essential." The Tea Party wanted the exception to be certain war monuments, for example.
Bad example.
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have? Please. That wasn't a decision to save money on non-essential services. That was a decision to punish Republicans.
LibreOffice has its uses, but you can't grep.odt files.
Depends on what you're doing. You can't use grep, specifically, but you can search by regular expression in LibreOffice.
(Actually, instead of "LaTeX quality wysiwyg", which sounds like you want software other than Latex, but which gives equal quality, you probably meant to say "wysiwyg LaTeX". If that's the case, I agree...
That's one way to slice it, but not the only way. I think publishing has an unhealthy relationship with LaTeX. Markup languages have come a long ways since 1980. Why are we so stuck on this one? Another language that is (1) more human readable (2) easier to machine parse (3) renders to equal or better quality (4) is wysiwyg friendly, should be quite possible.
Bring down costs. If everyone has insurance, it still doesn't bring down actual costs, it just spreads them around. "Best practices" are often very wasteful. We need less testing for things that doctors know aren't at issue, but more testing of things that are common problems and frequently go undiagnosed. We need better continuing education for medical professionals. WebMD (et al) should not have information on non-rare conditions that the average general physician doesn't know. Doctors need to spend more time thinking about people as systems... in other words: diagnosing instead of guessing.
Each of these would bring down costs of the whole system. This is just a very short list. A medical professional could go on like this at length.
We can't afford to think about healthcare as zero-sum. Even with the ACA, costs will only continue to skyrocket. Government can fix some things (eg: some of the games insurance companies were playing), but many of the problems must be fixed from within the medical system itself. Adding another layer of government obfuscation and obstruction is only likely to delay needed change.
but I'm all for giving the ACA the benefit of the doubt. It's not like it can't be changed if it turns out that it just doesn't work.
Unsuccessful government programs can die, but they almost never do. No, we're probably stuck with it.
Some of the ideas in ACA are worth exploring, but many of the details are horrible. The 49 employee "cap" is hurting companies (and the unemployed) across the country. Has no-one in government ever heard of gradation? Sheesh. This is truly ridiculous.
Why do you think the Obamacare web site doesn't work? On fucking purpose, so that masses of idiots will continue to believe in the narrative that everyone and their mom wants this fucking bullshit and it's only a "tiny minority" of "anarchists" and "extremists" which disagrees.
That's likely.
That is the sort of thing they'd do.
If they did that, though, I think they'd be lying about the number of people signed up through the exchange, instead of sidestepping the question every time it comes up. I think this one is probably raw incompetence.
For those not paying attention, This is the first shutdown that spent unknown amounts of money to close down things that should have simply sat there. As mentioned above, the shoulders of the road outside Rushmore were coned off; national parks, even ones that aren't normally closed or patrolled... closed and patrolled heavily; closing down open air national monuments (normally open 24/7); shutting down non-essential, but revenue positive programs; forcing private businesses to close on the thinnest excuses. The list goes on.
These are all new. These weren't the result of a government shutdown, these were the result of this government shutdown.
Someone in the executive branch decided that if Republicans were going to shut down the government, then they were going to take it upon themselves to make the shutdown as painful as possible. The shutdown should have been about saving money until a budget came about. Instead, it became about spending money to ensure pain. This is a new policy, and one worth noting.
That said, I afraid that most people still would prefer wysiwyg systems, as it easier to use than 'feel like a programmer' when using weird codes such as HTML, MarkDown, bbcodes, MediaWiki etc.
"Feel like a programmer" isn't the problem. Knowing that something is technically correct, but being unable to instantly verify that it is aesthetically pleasing is a major hangup. Unless you're making a professional report, or writing a book, there's no benefit to: hand-encoding a text, rendering it, editing the code, re-rendering it, tweaking the code, re-re-rendering it, tweaking the code again, re-re-re-rendering it... ad infinitum. In order for all that work to be worth it, the project must call for absolute perfection.
For a vast majority of writings out there, "good enough" is good enough.
(In today's day there really is no good reason why we can't have LaTeX quality wysiwyg. Computationally expensive, blah, blah, blah. We've got very, very fast computers on every desk today. Caching, and clever use of pre-rendering would permit a vast majority of changes to be rendered in real-time.)
I've just been in the industry for 20 years. My ultimate point is, flow based programming is probably just another fad designed to address the wrong problem.
Almost certainly. Whether or not it is a good idea in some contexts, it will inevitably be used in the wrong ones.
Some bad managers and programmers will probably jump on the bandwagon, because they always do. Then they'll do it wrong and have their projects fail or enter a never-ending purgatory of firefighter maintenance cycles and bug-ridden release. This will happen because they were addressing the wrong problem all along.
Yep.
A good programmer or team can write maintainable assembly if that's what's needed.
I'll quibble here a bit. A good programming team can expend a great deal of effort to write and maintain something in assembly. The language and infrastructure matter immeasurably in maintainability.
What companies need to be doing is cultivating the people who build their software, not jumping on every shiny new thing that comes along. Very frequently I've seen the company decide to change its entire process, move to agile or some bullshit and immediately have half its employees leave for other companies.
Fad based management is only a small fraction of that particular problem. The root of it is top-down authoritative "leadership". Feudal-lords in suits will always alienate workers. When they make bad decisions, they wonder why everyone jumps ship.
So do flow-based programming if that's what you want to do.
Woah, woah woah! Hold your horses. I pointed out how extraordinarily useful Unix pipes are, and how practically no other language feature I've come across is quite as easily extensible. I didn't say that Flow based programming was the one-true-way. I haven't yet looked into this recent fad, so why would I be rooting for it? I am rooting for language developers to think about encouraging cross-library integration by design to a degree that they currently seem incapable of.
But if some company asks you how to improve their awful code-base, the answer is really not going to be anything to do with the computers.
Usually.
It's going to be all about the people they hire.
And how they train them. Yeah, you can only instill so much into soft heads, but you can make some progress. Likewise, good programmers will go soft and stale if they're not kept sharp or if they are overworked. (Burned out coders don't spend extra time learning about new developments.)
Good programmers, managers and process will result in good code no matter how it's developed.
Uhm, you seem to contradict yourself there. Define "how it's developed" in absence of process and good programming practice.
Bad ones will result in shitty code no matter how it's developed.
Bad programmers are bad primarily because of how they develop software. This spans everything from how they prepare (or don't), how they treat whitespace, how they name things, how they comment code (or don't), how they correspond with colleagues (or don't), etc, etc, etc. If you mean the development methodology the firm employs: that's a part of it too, albeit a much smaller part.
You didn't read the link, did you. Some female mules are not infertile. It's just incredibly rare.
If a fertile female mule mated with a horse and produced a fertile female offspring, it could lead to convergence between one donkey and the horse population. Even assuming I know what I'm talking about (I've made a number of genetic assumptions), the odds of this are extraordinarily unlikely... but baring a particularly good reason why not, it is technically possible. Saying that it doesn't work because they're different species would be begging the question.
This wasn't a research institution, but a state college. Their mandate is teaching students to allow the economic advantage of having an educated population. Besides, any college with a bachelors program that doesn't value the one teacher who best teaches students is shooting themselves in the foot.
Even in research institutions, quantity of published material is a terrible metric. It's far better to have the genius who publishes once every few years than the nimrod who publishes every month. Unfortunately, it's often about caché (sp?), and not about science. Good institutions understand this, but there are enough out there that aren't that we get a near constant barrage of junk science.
How do scientists know, when it comes to any prehistoric animal or human skeleton, when an individual becomes to a new species, to some sort of missing link or just-split subspecies, and not just a slightly different individual belonging to a known species?
When it permits them to publish a paper.
No, I'm serious. When I was in school, the best lecturer in the department was almost canned because the department didn't want to give him tenure. Their excuse? (among other things) He didn't publish enough.
The pressure to publish is enormous, often to the detriment of real science.
Slashdot Mirror
That's generally true, but not always. It's called the "initial" public offering because it's not the only public offering. I'm not sure what the rules are, but companies can issue new stock. The idea isn't that you own a percentage of the companies assets, and therefore stock, once issued, is fixed. No, the idea is that all stock issued together represent the total assets of the company. Therefore, if the company sells $1000 of new stock, the company now has $1000 of new assets (initially as cash). The pie has grown, theoretically, and more people have a piece of it.
The SEC estimates that for amounts under $100,000, the fees will be 12.9% to 39% of the money raised...
Maybe it's bad writing, but this doesn't say "the cost of these services". It says "the fees". In other words, the amount required to file the paperwork and have the SEC review it. If this can be read literally, then it's theft, pure and simple.
What is your problem? You're acting like I insulted your mother.
Dude, this is why people frequently don't want to talk about politics. I'd rather have a conversation about where I'm wrong, than exchange insults. It's not healthy. This is the Internet. You're going to be smarter than somebody here. Don't take it as a personal insult when we're not.
No, that is not "my problem". I haven't "defined" anything. I've described the general behavior and some of the beliefs of people who typically fly those banners in the US.
You're overreacting. Why don't you tell me what you mean?
Slashdot is left of center. Not consistently, and it can frequently tolerate a good argument. But it is left leaning.
I don't undestand. What's so strange about being a Libertarian Socialist?
I'm about to paint with a very broad brush. I mean no insult to anybody.
Socialist generally try to create a utopia through targeted policies of taxation and welfare spending. In other words, they are for redistributing wealth and government intervention.
Libertarians, on the other hand, generally believe they can create a utopia despite government intrusion... and the less of it, the better.
These seem quite contradictory. To answer your question, this is why it seems strange. Ultimately, though, it depends on what you mean by the terms. There are all sorts of ideas that are called Socialist, and all sorts of ideas that are called Libertarian.
He (probably) didn't mean to start a new sect, but he absolutely knew that he was rebelling against the hierarchy in a big way.
Really?
Let me Google that for you.
They do...
well, sometimes.
Vaguely.
In theory, at least...
(But you're right in how it tends to work out as a matter of branding. Unfortunately, those brands haven't remained consistent.)
*face palm*
sigh. I'll give you that one.
No, it doesn't. You sound like you're regurgitating something you were spoon fed in college. I don't care what it meant at one point. I do care what it means today.
"Liberal" means lose, freely, without limitation, etc. "Conservative", means limited, restrained, cautious, etc. A true liberal sees no need to be hampered by bad decisions made in the past. Progress can be made, things can be fixed. A true conservative, on the other hand, sees no need to fix things that aren't broken. Why experiment if something is working? You might break it.
Most of us are not one, nor the other. We're a bit of both, some more to one side or the other.
Here's the important bit that you need to wrap your head around: Liberal and Conservative aren't points on the political spectrum. They're directions. (Most people overlook this, including most professors.)
The common usage of these terms has varied wildly over the years. The fundamental definition of the words hasn't changed, but the tyrants, liars, and impostors over the years have all used them to prop up their own brand of crazy. Today, those words depend almost entirely on which country you're in. In the US, they mean "acceptable to Democrats" and "acceptable to Republicans". No, those aren't the actual definitions of those words, but no other country in the world uses strictly correct definitions for them either. Remember, they're directions, not destinations. (pointing towards change, and away from change)
Greenpeacers see this as a good thing?? Surely you mean "big oil"? No "greenpeacer" would see these sort of tax reliefs on fuel-hungry cars as a Good Thing, surely. Because that is precisely what a milage-based tax is.
I don't think they mean this as a substitute for the gas tax, but additional to it. This isn't about policy, but money for the state coffers. Eventually (sooner than we think), it will be about NSA style civilian monitoring. (even if they claim otherwise)
You are right, though. From an environmental perspective, if you want to encourage both less driving, and fuel efficiency, gas tax is the way to go. Mileage tax only encourages less driving. Compared to gas tax, it permits fuel hogs to guzzle to their hearts' content.
You don't know that... and please pay attention:
"Depends on what you're doing."
You don't think I thought of that? I don't know what he wants to do, but I assumed the possibility that he might not know that LibreOffice search supports RE searches, and that it might possibly be useful to him. I don't know that it will be, but I also don't know that it won't be. It depends on what he's doing.
There is no contradiction there. Without wysiwyg, you have no way to know if what you've got is good enough, or not. You've got to go through the process or rendering, changing, rendering, etc, until you reach "good enough". With wysiwyg, you instantly know if something isn't good enough. It's a lot faster, especially if you make a little bit of effort to deal with styles. The final product won't be perfect, but it will be good.
And that link is a rather stupid and opinionated rant, quite frankly. It's not a technical anything by any reasonable standard. That said, my post above doesn't even disagree with his conclusion:
Bad example.
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have? Please. That wasn't a decision to save money on non-essential services. That was a decision to punish Republicans.
Yay for the Internet! Failing to relay text based sarcasm, once again.
Depends on what you're doing. You can't use grep, specifically, but you can search by regular expression in LibreOffice.
That's one way to slice it, but not the only way. I think publishing has an unhealthy relationship with LaTeX. Markup languages have come a long ways since 1980. Why are we so stuck on this one? Another language that is (1) more human readable (2) easier to machine parse (3) renders to equal or better quality (4) is wysiwyg friendly, should be quite possible.
Bring down costs. If everyone has insurance, it still doesn't bring down actual costs, it just spreads them around. "Best practices" are often very wasteful. We need less testing for things that doctors know aren't at issue, but more testing of things that are common problems and frequently go undiagnosed. We need better continuing education for medical professionals. WebMD (et al) should not have information on non-rare conditions that the average general physician doesn't know. Doctors need to spend more time thinking about people as systems... in other words: diagnosing instead of guessing.
Each of these would bring down costs of the whole system. This is just a very short list. A medical professional could go on like this at length.
We can't afford to think about healthcare as zero-sum. Even with the ACA, costs will only continue to skyrocket. Government can fix some things (eg: some of the games insurance companies were playing), but many of the problems must be fixed from within the medical system itself. Adding another layer of government obfuscation and obstruction is only likely to delay needed change.
Unsuccessful government programs can die, but they almost never do. No, we're probably stuck with it.
Some of the ideas in ACA are worth exploring, but many of the details are horrible. The 49 employee "cap" is hurting companies (and the unemployed) across the country. Has no-one in government ever heard of gradation? Sheesh. This is truly ridiculous.
That's likely.
That is the sort of thing they'd do.
If they did that, though, I think they'd be lying about the number of people signed up through the exchange, instead of sidestepping the question every time it comes up. I think this one is probably raw incompetence.
AC troll.
For those not paying attention, This is the first shutdown that spent unknown amounts of money to close down things that should have simply sat there. As mentioned above, the shoulders of the road outside Rushmore were coned off; national parks, even ones that aren't normally closed or patrolled... closed and patrolled heavily; closing down open air national monuments (normally open 24/7); shutting down non-essential, but revenue positive programs; forcing private businesses to close on the thinnest excuses. The list goes on.
These are all new. These weren't the result of a government shutdown, these were the result of this government shutdown.
Someone in the executive branch decided that if Republicans were going to shut down the government, then they were going to take it upon themselves to make the shutdown as painful as possible. The shutdown should have been about saving money until a budget came about. Instead, it became about spending money to ensure pain. This is a new policy, and one worth noting.
"Feel like a programmer" isn't the problem. Knowing that something is technically correct, but being unable to instantly verify that it is aesthetically pleasing is a major hangup. Unless you're making a professional report, or writing a book, there's no benefit to: hand-encoding a text, rendering it, editing the code, re-rendering it, tweaking the code, re-re-rendering it, tweaking the code again, re-re-re-rendering it... ad infinitum. In order for all that work to be worth it, the project must call for absolute perfection.
For a vast majority of writings out there, "good enough" is good enough.
(In today's day there really is no good reason why we can't have LaTeX quality wysiwyg. Computationally expensive, blah, blah, blah. We've got very, very fast computers on every desk today. Caching, and clever use of pre-rendering would permit a vast majority of changes to be rendered in real-time.)
Almost certainly. Whether or not it is a good idea in some contexts, it will inevitably be used in the wrong ones.
Yep.
I'll quibble here a bit. A good programming team can expend a great deal of effort to write and maintain something in assembly. The language and infrastructure matter immeasurably in maintainability.
Fad based management is only a small fraction of that particular problem. The root of it is top-down authoritative "leadership". Feudal-lords in suits will always alienate workers. When they make bad decisions, they wonder why everyone jumps ship.
Woah, woah woah! Hold your horses. I pointed out how extraordinarily useful Unix pipes are, and how practically no other language feature I've come across is quite as easily extensible. I didn't say that Flow based programming was the one-true-way. I haven't yet looked into this recent fad, so why would I be rooting for it? I am rooting for language developers to think about encouraging cross-library integration by design to a degree that they currently seem incapable of.
Usually.
And how they train them. Yeah, you can only instill so much into soft heads, but you can make some progress. Likewise, good programmers will go soft and stale if they're not kept sharp or if they are overworked. (Burned out coders don't spend extra time learning about new developments.)
Uhm, you seem to contradict yourself there. Define "how it's developed" in absence of process and good programming practice.
Bad programmers are bad primarily because of how they develop software. This spans everything from how they prepare (or don't), how they treat whitespace, how they name things, how they comment code (or don't), how they correspond with colleagues (or don't), etc, etc, etc. If you mean the development methodology the firm employs: that's a part of it too, albeit a much smaller part.
You didn't read the link, did you. Some female mules are not infertile. It's just incredibly rare.
If a fertile female mule mated with a horse and produced a fertile female offspring, it could lead to convergence between one donkey and the horse population. Even assuming I know what I'm talking about (I've made a number of genetic assumptions), the odds of this are extraordinarily unlikely... but baring a particularly good reason why not, it is technically possible. Saying that it doesn't work because they're different species would be begging the question.
This wasn't a research institution, but a state college. Their mandate is teaching students to allow the economic advantage of having an educated population. Besides, any college with a bachelors program that doesn't value the one teacher who best teaches students is shooting themselves in the foot.
Even in research institutions, quantity of published material is a terrible metric. It's far better to have the genius who publishes once every few years than the nimrod who publishes every month. Unfortunately, it's often about caché (sp?), and not about science. Good institutions understand this, but there are enough out there that aren't that we get a near constant barrage of junk science.
When it permits them to publish a paper.
No, I'm serious. When I was in school, the best lecturer in the department was almost canned because the department didn't want to give him tenure. Their excuse? (among other things) He didn't publish enough.
The pressure to publish is enormous, often to the detriment of real science.