Could you elaborate? I am not trying to start any kind of flame-war, I am actually curious (imagine that, thinking about getting real info from a discussion on/.). I only have a tiny amount of experience with OS X after Hackintoshing my PC some time back, but I never got enough experience with it to see where OS X might be a mangled UNIX. I thought it was relatively straight-up BSD on MACH.
To me, "Web" means over/on-the-internet. To you, apparently, it means in-a-web-browser.
Then he is right and you are wrong. The fact that you actually distinguish, for users, between intranet and internet, between in-house and external means you live some time in the early '90s and you need an update.
At a relatively modern corporation the CFO opens his browser when he gets to work. From the browser he can access, without worrying about where the data is, internal corporate numbers, the latest performance of his sales staff, the latest news from Google and Yahoo etc. The vast majority of his computer-related work happens in either his browser or his email client (the move to corporate web-based email is slower than other apps). He doesn't know how his detailed financial data ended up in his browser window, and he doesn't know, or care, that the competitors financial data, listed for comparison, comes from Yahoo financials. Why should he care? Why does he need to know?
The integrated, dash-board if you like, experience corporations are putting together in the browser these days, would be impossible or at least highly impractical, with traditional apps.
Sure, it is just another protocol and just yet another client-server technology. We all know that. It's just that it is so much easier and so much faster to do it all with a single, open, commonly used standard than with anything that came before.
Oh, and yes, it is horrendous that it is IP and HTTP that is driving this. Both are almost totally unsuited for the task. Apart from the fact that they kinda work anyway.
Honestly - you should lobby to have the idiots fired. There is no reason to use ActiveX for web-app development. There are thousands of reasons (you have touched upon some of them) not to. You should argue this point strongly to your management. Those idiots are putting your corporate security at risk.
If they can't make it happen using stuff like Ajax, Java applets or Flash/Flex, things that at least try to enforce some sort of security, they are incompetent and should also be fired. Developers must be getting down to about a dime a dozen these days. Have your incompetent ones replaced by someone who actually knows what they are doing.
If the industry-standard web application software for your line of business uses ActiveX or relies on quirks of Windows Internet Explorer
Some (idiots) did this way back when, and some have not been able to fix it. There are too many of these types (of idiots) working on in-house stuff, and that is sad. Going forward hopefully there will be less such mistakes made. Honestly, if you develop an in-house web-based app and you rely on ActiveX stuff you really are a massive idiot since you clearly didn't understand the entire purpose of making applications web-based. Using the browser as a cheap desktop application distribution mechanism is so astonishingly dumb that anyone doing it should be fired on the spot. Using ActiveX in web-apps is the same as using IE as a desktop application distribution mechanism.
Exception is made for those using ActiveX to develop browser extensions obviously (like using it for a Java plugin).
The future is not web-based because no large corporation will put/send/store their sensitive stuff (as in trade secrets) on any other corporation's web servers. Not even email. Ever.
And? Why do you think that something being web-based would mean that I, as a corporation, would put anything anywhere I did not want to put it?
Lots of corporations have been moving their stuff to the web as fast as they can. On their own private Intranet. In huge amounts. I started developing web-based Intranet applications in 1998. Mostly replacing or re-factoring proprietary apps that were getting data in and out of Oracle DBs. Why would I stop that? Why should the corporation stop it? Why would we have to move something to some other corporation?
The desktop is not dead, not yet, but it is dying fast. Much faster than I would have thought it would. The corporate desktop is dying far faster than the personal home-user desktop since the corporate world couldn't give a rats azz about accelerated graphics (in 99% of the corporate domain) or other desktop-only features. Data entry and presentation apps are perfect for web-based apps, and they are showing up everywhere.
Yeah, right. Again, having tried the gov stuff, no way it is that interesting. Private industry spends a lot more money on interesting software engineering than does the gov.
As an addendum to my own posting saying "Don't get a masters, I have to add, "unless you want to work for the government. Then again, why on earth would you want to work for the government?
Masters is the highest route for payment in a professional environment.
Drop the masters. In CS it is useless unless you want to teach. Get some experience. Put aside some money. Find out what you want to do after you tire of being a code monkey - I can assure you, you will tire of it. Some people tire pretty fast given that most software development in the corporate world is mundane and repetitive - how many web-based Oracle applications can one person enjoy developing?
Once you know what you want to do when you are tired of being a code monkey, get an education that pushes you in that direction. Want to be a pre-sales engineer, get a business degree so you speak the speak. Want to become a Project manager, get a cert. Want to become a Product Manager get some marketing education.
Diversity and utility is how you make money in the computer industry. Outside of the teaching crowd, a Master in CS is probably the most useless degree there is.
When you start up many things can happen. The most likely is that you go bust, the software dwindles into insignificance and you have had a nice experience.
Some times you get a nice offer for your company. Make sure the offer you get includes a lot of cash or other immediately useful instruments of wealth. You will probably also get an offer for a nice job. Don't put too much value on that. Chances are you'll be outta there as soon as the options part of your package has vested. Big corps buying small corps usually doesn't end well for either.
So, make sure your up-front package is good and assume you'll be onto something new later on.
Or, you can do what some people do, hold on for a bigger thing down the line. It doesn't come but it'll be a fun ride. Only a very small number of companies actually make it. Chances are, even though the big guys want you now, that you are not going to make it big. The buy-out option is rare enough, and you should make that one worth your while. Then you go on to the next fun thing later on.
What is it that you think I am wrong on? You corrected my misconception, I accepted your correction. I have said nothing since that was wrong, you have made a ton of assumptions that were absurd and you have stated things that were plain wrong.
Which is a little older than 8 years.
The cause of this predicament pre-dates the crisis, obviously, that is the nature of such things. The crisis on the other hand is not eight years old and claiming that it has been debated and looked at for that amount of time is absurd.
No, you dumb fat fuck, that proves my point that astronomical pay has everything to do with the current crisis
Given the fact that the article you quoted actually states that the bonuses in question are not executive bonuses to any degree actually proves that you are not only dumb, but a liar. Executive bonuses have no monetary impact on the magnitude of this crisis, and the quoted article says so. Are you actually this retarded or are you just unable to admit you are wrong. You see, adults can admit they are wrong. You should go back to my second posting in this thread where I admit to be corrected by your rude and stupid, but accidentally correct, post. When adults are wrong and we are shown that we are wrong, we have no problem admitting it. You will too, if you grow up.
CEO's should be paid based on performance.
Reminds me of that show with whatshisname, "Kids say the darndest things" or whatever. You do. Why are you arguing a point that nobody is disagreeing with? Why do you think that anyone would disagree that CEO pay should be based on performance. OF COURSE it should be based on performance. Everybody would agree with that.
don't apply to auto worker contracts
Of course they do. If GM has a sales person who is on commission pay you can bet your ass he gets his commissions. Why shouldn't he. If he sells the required amount of cars he should. No matter what happens to GM. It makes sense. That is what the article you quoted points out also makes sense for the banking industry. The article goes to some length explaining why the mixing of "bonuses" and "executive bonuses" is counterproductive in this debate, but since you probably aren't even able to read words as long as "counterproductive" I assume you didn't get the point.
If your company has enough money to pay out bonuses, it has no business applying for taxpayer money.
If GM stops paying GM sales people commissions when they sell cars (or bonuses if you will) then GM will not need any taxpayer money since they will not sell a single car more in 2009. Please read the article again, perhaps you will understand it.
First you chose to spread around tired old wingnut BS, which the country has little patience for after 8 years.
Thanks for proving to the world that you are in fact completely retarded. You see, the bank crisis is a little newer than eight years, and claiming that someone has spouted anything at all related to a problem that is less than a year old for eight years shows a sever mental retardation.
It seems you are one of those retards who jump to conclusions based on nothing whatsoever. It appears that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a repugnican fan and a "follower" of the retard called G. W. Bush. I am neither. Please try to avoid using your brain for something it clearly wasn't designed for, that is, stick to chewing gum and wiping your ass. Leave the more advanced stuff, such as actual thinking, to people who are not as handicapped as you are.
Here's a case [thecro.com]
Thank you again for proving my point - that CEO pay in this industry has no relations to his performance. Too bad it goes completely counter to your point that in this world CEO compensation is related to said CEO performance. Again you are showing that you are utterly retarded.
Now, if you actually read the article you quoter, you would have read the following sentence, which is really, really important: "Some bonuses are contractually promised, and are part of compensation for many employees who aren't involved in the high-stakes shenanigans that have brought about the current problems". Now, you are using this article to "prove" me wrong when I said that executive bonuses had no real impact on the financial results of these institutions, and the article agrees with that too. You see, there is a huge difference between the concept "bonus" and "executive bonus". There are lots of employees who are contractually entitled to certain bonuses, and that is a lot more people than there are CEOs in the same companies. Since there are so many of them the total bonus payout is high, even when individual bonus payouts are reasonable. We didn't talk about bonuses in general though, we talked about executive bonuses, and the reality is still that they had no real impact on the magnitude of the crisis.
Again, thanks for doing the leg work for me, proving me right and proving to the world that you are utterly retarded.
In general, people who have just been proven wrong don't get to call those who were right "morons"
Actually, they do. You informed me that I was wrong, and I had no problem with that. You could have done that in an adult manner or you could have done it like a moronic child with Tourettes. You chose that latter, which makes you a moron whether you were right on the particular point or not.
On what planet are CEO's not supposed to be paid according to the company's results?
Reading apparently isn't your strong suit. Where did I say that CEOs are not supposed to be paid according to the company's results? If you can find an adult, try to have them explain the difference between "should be" and "are". The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions all got massive bonuses as their companies were in free-fall. Yes, you are right that theoretically CEOs should be awarded according to company results, but in the real world, into which your mother might let you out when you grow up (but the helmet stays on) they are in fact paid extraordinarily large bonuses whether the company goes up or in the toilet (look it up, it is something a lot of people have in their houses).
You are wrong. We are talking about moving from solid to liquid, and liquid water never reaches the volume of solid water, no matter what temperature. Try it your self. Liquid water has a max temp of some 100C, and the highest volume it can have in liquid form. Drop some ice into boiling water. Does it float? If it does you are (in this context) wrong.
and, as the volume increases and increases, it slowly begins to approach the volume the water had when it was ice. Liquid water reaches the volume it had when it was ice somewhere around "never".
Try it your self, heat water to about 100C (max temp for liquid water - depends a little on pressure of course) and drop some ice in it? Does it float? If it does, ice density is lower than boiling water density, which means that melting ice that floats will never contribute to a rising water level.
Or just simply misinformed. I have been corrected and my misinformation is now fixed. The fact that you are a moron probably is not fixable. I hope they find a cure.
Astronomical pay has everything to do with the crisis
You are, as you would put it, a habitual liar and probably a thief and rapist too. Just to keep the debate at a level where you would be able to recognize it.
Now - to your point, no it doesn't. You are assuming there would be a difference in pay depending on whether they did well and took risks or not. The past few months proves that this is not the case. These guys get astronomical salaries no matter what they do or don't do, so their pay did not encourage any kind of behavior whatsoever, risky or not.
You have to stop stealing, lying and cheating on your wife. Oh, and the last one is a compliment, I am graciously assuming you have the ability to find a wife, which seems rather improbable.
Oh and nobody creates money, except in exceptional circumstances (the central bank can, but an ordinary bank can't.. that's self evident
You should always examine closely what is self-evident, it rarely is. Yes, an "ordinary" bank can create money. Not a limitless amount, but close enough. When you walk into a bank to borrow money that money does not come from deposits the bank has anywhere, the bank actually gets to conjure the money up from nowhere and then deposit that money into your account. True.
The bank needs to deposit an amount with the Feds to be able to do this, but the amount the bank has to deposit is (now a very small) fraction of the amount of money they are allowed to conjure up from nowhere.
Yes, because it's the government's fault that investment firms took on 1:60 asset/liability ratios,
Yes, it is. Think Fannie Mae and politicians going "you gotsta lend money to my poor constituents, and I care not if they can repay or no"
inflated a few hundred billion in mortgages into a $45-$60 trillion bubble,
Yes, see the above.
and paid top executives vast sums of money
That is not the governments fault, but on the other hand, that had nothing to do with the current economic crisis. Granted, the sea levels do rise, and the ocean temperature does increase when I pizz in it, but only very theoretically.
Interesting argument. So, if a three year old kid goes: I want to play with the gun daddy, I want to play with the gun, then it is the child's fault when he shoots mummy in the belly with daddy's gun?
Companies will lobby for anything that will make them more money in the short term. It is the governments responsibility to govern. Can I also go to congress and beg for a trillion? Would it be my fault if they gave it to me?
According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this.
Depends. For someone like Cheney or Bush, definitely, but primarily because they do not know what capitalism is. Having a "devotion" to something that isn't dogmatic is hard.
Anything can, even science
Actually, no, not really. There are probably devout scientists, but not about science. Science is about not knowing, not about dogma.
In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.
I do not know what anti-religion is, but atheism is belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion,
Good for you. Why would you think what Diderot thinks about religion is relevant here? Did I evere say anything at all about what Diderot thought and didn't think?
I was arguing against capital punishment
I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this.
Sorry about that, thought you'd been part of the entire discussion. Check one of the first posts I made in this discussion here. Easy to miss, I know. Sorry about that.
My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them
You should stop feeling so much. It isn't good for you. If you can show me anyone who would argue, seriously, and literally, for capital punishment for voter irregularities I have no problem acknowledging it. I would also not have a problem acknowledging that the statement came from an individual with severe mental deficiencies.
That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story.
Actually, no, they are not. They are incidental. They are a writers tool. The writer is trying to convey a message and that message doesn't have any emperors in it, it doesn't have clothes in it, and it doesn't really have children in it either. That is what you could call poetic imagery. This is a common tool by writers and story tellers.
Without it there is no story.
If that was the case nobody would remember the story. The story could use any number of other metaphors, the clothes and the emperor are incidental to the story.
There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish,
That is a minor part of it. The story definitely is about peer pressure. It has a number of other facets though. See if you can find them. Innocence of children unspoiled is another one. How does the story relate to the more common (and modern) "keeping up with the Jonses", or in this case, flauting it in front of the Jonses even though it isn't worth flauting.
If this was a modern story it might be about an upper middle class Scandinavian woman coming into some money, buying a new expensive diamond ring and all her friends thinking it is tacky and tasteless. In many places in Scandinavia big expensive diamonds are considered tacky and tasteless. In such a modern version the woman is the emperor and her diamond is his clothes. This is why H. C. Andersens works still live on, they are timeless. Even when there are no emperors any more, and no, the dude in Japan doesn't count, an emperor is only an emperor if he has an empire.
ut all you are doing is conflating two different meanings of a single word.
Absolutely not. It's just you who have some sort of hang-up about the use of the word priest as a generic term for a leader of a religious group. I do not know why, but if you can define socialism as a religion, then Stalin was a priest. Per definition. Now, you can show us that he was not a priest by explaining how you were wrong when you said that socialism could be defined as a religion. Until then you are just a really retarded individual.
The word "supernatural" is straight from the dictionary
Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this? ONE of the definitions listed in the Oxford dictionary mentions the supernatural. It can ALSO be used in the following sense: "3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion", and that is a quote. So, no, there doesn't have to be anything supernatural about religion. Try again.
That you are equating political arguments to religions shows your intellectual dishonesty.
That you are still denying it, even after the Oxford dictionary quote, shows your inability to read basic English.
I don't care about the details of some minor philosopher that you quote
I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written. If you do not understand it you should ask an adult for help. I was arguing against capital punishment and you thought the quote should be taken literally even though it, literally, was 100% direct opposite of what I was arguing. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of reasoning abilities that something was odd. At that point in time the person with a mere modicum of reasoning abilities should have asked for help, the rest of the world would understand, instantly, that the quote was not meant to be taken literally.
I have seen people who purportedly are against capital punishment call for lynch-style justice for political crimes
Given your ability to read, I think this is a problem with your interpretation, not the communication abilities of said writers. Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.
People who wouldn't execute somebody for being a serial killer but would for election fraud or passing a law in a underhanded way
I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.
Fact is people who normally would abhor murder as a means can get riled up over the pet issues
Rifled doesn't mean that they actually want to kill someone. If you take everything people say 100% literally you are going to get into serious trouble once your parents let you out of the house. People often doesn't mean literally what they say. You really need to learn when it is obvious that they don't. Don't worry though, it is covered in most high schools outside of Texas.
I was only alluding to the fact that the clothes couldn't be seen because they didn't in fact exist.
And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story. It was a terrible mixing of metaphors. Don't try it again until you understand what such metaphors try to convey.
they were magic and could only not be seen by stupid or incompetent people.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you could fit 6 billion people in Greenwich...
If you expand it a bit. You can comfortably fit 6 billion people in Britain, not taking the issue of how you handle the growth into consideration.
And they claim the world is overpopulated!
desktop OS X and OS X Server are badly mangled
Could you elaborate? I am not trying to start any kind of flame-war, I am actually curious (imagine that, thinking about getting real info from a discussion on /.). I only have a tiny amount of experience with OS X after Hackintoshing my PC some time back, but I never got enough experience with it to see where OS X might be a mangled UNIX. I thought it was relatively straight-up BSD on MACH.
The future is web based.
Is it? After a typical month I am near my download limit for the month
Don't you think it is just a little bit funny when he talks about "the future" and you counter with "last month"? You should probably read this.
To me, "Web" means over/on-the-internet. To you, apparently, it means in-a-web-browser.
Then he is right and you are wrong. The fact that you actually distinguish, for users, between intranet and internet, between in-house and external means you live some time in the early '90s and you need an update.
At a relatively modern corporation the CFO opens his browser when he gets to work. From the browser he can access, without worrying about where the data is, internal corporate numbers, the latest performance of his sales staff, the latest news from Google and Yahoo etc. The vast majority of his computer-related work happens in either his browser or his email client (the move to corporate web-based email is slower than other apps). He doesn't know how his detailed financial data ended up in his browser window, and he doesn't know, or care, that the competitors financial data, listed for comparison, comes from Yahoo financials. Why should he care? Why does he need to know?
The integrated, dash-board if you like, experience corporations are putting together in the browser these days, would be impossible or at least highly impractical, with traditional apps.
Sure, it is just another protocol and just yet another client-server technology. We all know that. It's just that it is so much easier and so much faster to do it all with a single, open, commonly used standard than with anything that came before.
Oh, and yes, it is horrendous that it is IP and HTTP that is driving this. Both are almost totally unsuited for the task. Apart from the fact that they kinda work anyway.
Correct, intranets need no web. On the other hand, web-based technologies are one of the better ways to develop intranet applications.
Honestly - you should lobby to have the idiots fired. There is no reason to use ActiveX for web-app development. There are thousands of reasons (you have touched upon some of them) not to. You should argue this point strongly to your management. Those idiots are putting your corporate security at risk.
If they can't make it happen using stuff like Ajax, Java applets or Flash/Flex, things that at least try to enforce some sort of security, they are incompetent and should also be fired. Developers must be getting down to about a dime a dozen these days. Have your incompetent ones replaced by someone who actually knows what they are doing.
If the industry-standard web application software for your line of business uses ActiveX or relies on quirks of Windows Internet Explorer
Some (idiots) did this way back when, and some have not been able to fix it. There are too many of these types (of idiots) working on in-house stuff, and that is sad. Going forward hopefully there will be less such mistakes made. Honestly, if you develop an in-house web-based app and you rely on ActiveX stuff you really are a massive idiot since you clearly didn't understand the entire purpose of making applications web-based. Using the browser as a cheap desktop application distribution mechanism is so astonishingly dumb that anyone doing it should be fired on the spot. Using ActiveX in web-apps is the same as using IE as a desktop application distribution mechanism.
Exception is made for those using ActiveX to develop browser extensions obviously (like using it for a Java plugin).
The future is not web-based because no large corporation will put/send/store their sensitive stuff (as in trade secrets) on any other corporation's web servers. Not even email. Ever.
And? Why do you think that something being web-based would mean that I, as a corporation, would put anything anywhere I did not want to put it?
Lots of corporations have been moving their stuff to the web as fast as they can. On their own private Intranet. In huge amounts. I started developing web-based Intranet applications in 1998. Mostly replacing or re-factoring proprietary apps that were getting data in and out of Oracle DBs. Why would I stop that? Why should the corporation stop it? Why would we have to move something to some other corporation?
The desktop is not dead, not yet, but it is dying fast. Much faster than I would have thought it would. The corporate desktop is dying far faster than the personal home-user desktop since the corporate world couldn't give a rats azz about accelerated graphics (in 99% of the corporate domain) or other desktop-only features. Data entry and presentation apps are perfect for web-based apps, and they are showing up everywhere.
Yeah, right. Again, having tried the gov stuff, no way it is that interesting. Private industry spends a lot more money on interesting software engineering than does the gov.
As an addendum to my own posting saying "Don't get a masters, I have to add, "unless you want to work for the government. Then again, why on earth would you want to work for the government?
Masters is the highest route for payment in a professional environment.
Drop the masters. In CS it is useless unless you want to teach. Get some experience. Put aside some money. Find out what you want to do after you tire of being a code monkey - I can assure you, you will tire of it. Some people tire pretty fast given that most software development in the corporate world is mundane and repetitive - how many web-based Oracle applications can one person enjoy developing?
Once you know what you want to do when you are tired of being a code monkey, get an education that pushes you in that direction. Want to be a pre-sales engineer, get a business degree so you speak the speak. Want to become a Project manager, get a cert. Want to become a Product Manager get some marketing education.
Diversity and utility is how you make money in the computer industry. Outside of the teaching crowd, a Master in CS is probably the most useless degree there is.
Amen to this.
When you start up many things can happen. The most likely is that you go bust, the software dwindles into insignificance and you have had a nice experience.
Some times you get a nice offer for your company. Make sure the offer you get includes a lot of cash or other immediately useful instruments of wealth. You will probably also get an offer for a nice job. Don't put too much value on that. Chances are you'll be outta there as soon as the options part of your package has vested. Big corps buying small corps usually doesn't end well for either.
So, make sure your up-front package is good and assume you'll be onto something new later on.
Or, you can do what some people do, hold on for a bigger thing down the line. It doesn't come but it'll be a fun ride. Only a very small number of companies actually make it. Chances are, even though the big guys want you now, that you are not going to make it big. The buy-out option is rare enough, and you should make that one worth your while. Then you go on to the next fun thing later on.
Problem: you're still 100% wrong, I'm 100% right
What is it that you think I am wrong on? You corrected my misconception, I accepted your correction. I have said nothing since that was wrong, you have made a ton of assumptions that were absurd and you have stated things that were plain wrong.
Which is a little older than 8 years.
The cause of this predicament pre-dates the crisis, obviously, that is the nature of such things. The crisis on the other hand is not eight years old and claiming that it has been debated and looked at for that amount of time is absurd.
No, you dumb fat fuck, that proves my point that astronomical pay has everything to do with the current crisis
Given the fact that the article you quoted actually states that the bonuses in question are not executive bonuses to any degree actually proves that you are not only dumb, but a liar. Executive bonuses have no monetary impact on the magnitude of this crisis, and the quoted article says so. Are you actually this retarded or are you just unable to admit you are wrong. You see, adults can admit they are wrong. You should go back to my second posting in this thread where I admit to be corrected by your rude and stupid, but accidentally correct, post. When adults are wrong and we are shown that we are wrong, we have no problem admitting it. You will too, if you grow up.
CEO's should be paid based on performance.
Reminds me of that show with whatshisname, "Kids say the darndest things" or whatever. You do. Why are you arguing a point that nobody is disagreeing with? Why do you think that anyone would disagree that CEO pay should be based on performance. OF COURSE it should be based on performance. Everybody would agree with that.
don't apply to auto worker contracts
Of course they do. If GM has a sales person who is on commission pay you can bet your ass he gets his commissions. Why shouldn't he. If he sells the required amount of cars he should. No matter what happens to GM. It makes sense. That is what the article you quoted points out also makes sense for the banking industry. The article goes to some length explaining why the mixing of "bonuses" and "executive bonuses" is counterproductive in this debate, but since you probably aren't even able to read words as long as "counterproductive" I assume you didn't get the point.
If your company has enough money to pay out bonuses, it has no business applying for taxpayer money.
If GM stops paying GM sales people commissions when they sell cars (or bonuses if you will) then GM will not need any taxpayer money since they will not sell a single car more in 2009. Please read the article again, perhaps you will understand it.
First you chose to spread around tired old wingnut BS, which the country has little patience for after 8 years.
Thanks for proving to the world that you are in fact completely retarded. You see, the bank crisis is a little newer than eight years, and claiming that someone has spouted anything at all related to a problem that is less than a year old for eight years shows a sever mental retardation.
It seems you are one of those retards who jump to conclusions based on nothing whatsoever. It appears that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a repugnican fan and a "follower" of the retard called G. W. Bush. I am neither. Please try to avoid using your brain for something it clearly wasn't designed for, that is, stick to chewing gum and wiping your ass. Leave the more advanced stuff, such as actual thinking, to people who are not as handicapped as you are.
Here's a case [thecro.com]
Thank you again for proving my point - that CEO pay in this industry has no relations to his performance. Too bad it goes completely counter to your point that in this world CEO compensation is related to said CEO performance. Again you are showing that you are utterly retarded.
Now, if you actually read the article you quoter, you would have read the following sentence, which is really, really important: "Some bonuses are contractually promised, and are part of compensation for many employees who aren't involved in the high-stakes shenanigans that have brought about the current problems". Now, you are using this article to "prove" me wrong when I said that executive bonuses had no real impact on the financial results of these institutions, and the article agrees with that too. You see, there is a huge difference between the concept "bonus" and "executive bonus". There are lots of employees who are contractually entitled to certain bonuses, and that is a lot more people than there are CEOs in the same companies. Since there are so many of them the total bonus payout is high, even when individual bonus payouts are reasonable. We didn't talk about bonuses in general though, we talked about executive bonuses, and the reality is still that they had no real impact on the magnitude of the crisis.
Again, thanks for doing the leg work for me, proving me right and proving to the world that you are utterly retarded.
In general, people who have just been proven wrong don't get to call those who were right "morons"
Actually, they do. You informed me that I was wrong, and I had no problem with that. You could have done that in an adult manner or you could have done it like a moronic child with Tourettes. You chose that latter, which makes you a moron whether you were right on the particular point or not.
On what planet are CEO's not supposed to be paid according to the company's results?
Reading apparently isn't your strong suit. Where did I say that CEOs are not supposed to be paid according to the company's results? If you can find an adult, try to have them explain the difference between "should be" and "are". The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions all got massive bonuses as their companies were in free-fall. Yes, you are right that theoretically CEOs should be awarded according to company results, but in the real world, into which your mother might let you out when you grow up (but the helmet stays on) they are in fact paid extraordinarily large bonuses whether the company goes up or in the toilet (look it up, it is something a lot of people have in their houses).
water increases volume when heated up
You are wrong. We are talking about moving from solid to liquid, and liquid water never reaches the volume of solid water, no matter what temperature. Try it your self. Liquid water has a max temp of some 100C, and the highest volume it can have in liquid form. Drop some ice into boiling water. Does it float? If it does you are (in this context) wrong.
and, as the volume increases and increases, it slowly begins to approach the volume the water had when it was ice. Liquid water reaches the volume it had when it was ice somewhere around "never".
Try it your self, heat water to about 100C (max temp for liquid water - depends a little on pressure of course) and drop some ice in it? Does it float? If it does, ice density is lower than boiling water density, which means that melting ice that floats will never contribute to a rising water level.
if you were a wingnut or a habitual liar
Or just simply misinformed. I have been corrected and my misinformation is now fixed. The fact that you are a moron probably is not fixable. I hope they find a cure.
Astronomical pay has everything to do with the crisis
You are, as you would put it, a habitual liar and probably a thief and rapist too. Just to keep the debate at a level where you would be able to recognize it.
Now - to your point, no it doesn't. You are assuming there would be a difference in pay depending on whether they did well and took risks or not. The past few months proves that this is not the case. These guys get astronomical salaries no matter what they do or don't do, so their pay did not encourage any kind of behavior whatsoever, risky or not.
You have to stop stealing, lying and cheating on your wife. Oh, and the last one is a compliment, I am graciously assuming you have the ability to find a wife, which seems rather improbable.
Oh and nobody creates money, except in exceptional circumstances (the central bank can, but an ordinary bank can't.. that's self evident
You should always examine closely what is self-evident, it rarely is. Yes, an "ordinary" bank can create money. Not a limitless amount, but close enough. When you walk into a bank to borrow money that money does not come from deposits the bank has anywhere, the bank actually gets to conjure the money up from nowhere and then deposit that money into your account. True.
The bank needs to deposit an amount with the Feds to be able to do this, but the amount the bank has to deposit is (now a very small) fraction of the amount of money they are allowed to conjure up from nowhere.
Yes, because it's the government's fault that investment firms took on 1:60 asset/liability ratios,
Yes, it is. Think Fannie Mae and politicians going "you gotsta lend money to my poor constituents, and I care not if they can repay or no"
inflated a few hundred billion in mortgages into a $45-$60 trillion bubble,
Yes, see the above.
and paid top executives vast sums of money
That is not the governments fault, but on the other hand, that had nothing to do with the current economic crisis. Granted, the sea levels do rise, and the ocean temperature does increase when I pizz in it, but only very theoretically.
Interesting argument. So, if a three year old kid goes: I want to play with the gun daddy, I want to play with the gun, then it is the child's fault when he shoots mummy in the belly with daddy's gun?
Companies will lobby for anything that will make them more money in the short term. It is the governments responsibility to govern. Can I also go to congress and beg for a trillion? Would it be my fault if they gave it to me?
According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this.
Depends. For someone like Cheney or Bush, definitely, but primarily because they do not know what capitalism is. Having a "devotion" to something that isn't dogmatic is hard.
Anything can, even science
Actually, no, not really. There are probably devout scientists, but not about science. Science is about not knowing, not about dogma.
In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.
I do not know what anti-religion is, but atheism is belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion,
Good for you. Why would you think what Diderot thinks about religion is relevant here? Did I evere say anything at all about what Diderot thought and didn't think?
I was arguing against capital punishment
I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this.
Sorry about that, thought you'd been part of the entire discussion. Check one of the first posts I made in this discussion here. Easy to miss, I know. Sorry about that.
My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them
You should stop feeling so much. It isn't good for you. If you can show me anyone who would argue, seriously, and literally, for capital punishment for voter irregularities I have no problem acknowledging it. I would also not have a problem acknowledging that the statement came from an individual with severe mental deficiencies.
That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story.
Actually, no, they are not. They are incidental. They are a writers tool. The writer is trying to convey a message and that message doesn't have any emperors in it, it doesn't have clothes in it, and it doesn't really have children in it either. That is what you could call poetic imagery. This is a common tool by writers and story tellers.
Without it there is no story.
If that was the case nobody would remember the story. The story could use any number of other metaphors, the clothes and the emperor are incidental to the story.
There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish,
That is a minor part of it. The story definitely is about peer pressure. It has a number of other facets though. See if you can find them. Innocence of children unspoiled is another one. How does the story relate to the more common (and modern) "keeping up with the Jonses", or in this case, flauting it in front of the Jonses even though it isn't worth flauting.
If this was a modern story it might be about an upper middle class Scandinavian woman coming into some money, buying a new expensive diamond ring and all her friends thinking it is tacky and tasteless. In many places in Scandinavia big expensive diamonds are considered tacky and tasteless. In such a modern version the woman is the emperor and her diamond is his clothes. This is why H. C. Andersens works still live on, they are timeless. Even when there are no emperors any more, and no, the dude in Japan doesn't count, an emperor is only an emperor if he has an empire.
ut all you are doing is conflating two different meanings of a single word.
Absolutely not. It's just you who have some sort of hang-up about the use of the word priest as a generic term for a leader of a religious group. I do not know why, but if you can define socialism as a religion, then Stalin was a priest. Per definition. Now, you can show us that he was not a priest by explaining how you were wrong when you said that socialism could be defined as a religion. Until then you are just a really retarded individual.
The word "supernatural" is straight from the dictionary
Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this? ONE of the definitions listed in the Oxford dictionary mentions the supernatural. It can ALSO be used in the following sense: "3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion", and that is a quote. So, no, there doesn't have to be anything supernatural about religion. Try again.
That you are equating political arguments to religions shows your intellectual dishonesty.
That you are still denying it, even after the Oxford dictionary quote, shows your inability to read basic English.
I don't care about the details of some minor philosopher that you quote
I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written. If you do not understand it you should ask an adult for help. I was arguing against capital punishment and you thought the quote should be taken literally even though it, literally, was 100% direct opposite of what I was arguing. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of reasoning abilities that something was odd. At that point in time the person with a mere modicum of reasoning abilities should have asked for help, the rest of the world would understand, instantly, that the quote was not meant to be taken literally.
I have seen people who purportedly are against capital punishment call for lynch-style justice for political crimes
Given your ability to read, I think this is a problem with your interpretation, not the communication abilities of said writers. Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.
People who wouldn't execute somebody for being a serial killer but would for election fraud or passing a law in a underhanded way
I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.
Fact is people who normally would abhor murder as a means can get riled up over the pet issues
Rifled doesn't mean that they actually want to kill someone. If you take everything people say 100% literally you are going to get into serious trouble once your parents let you out of the house. People often doesn't mean literally what they say. You really need to learn when it is obvious that they don't. Don't worry though, it is covered in most high schools outside of Texas.
I was only alluding to the fact that the clothes couldn't be seen because they didn't in fact exist.
And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story. It was a terrible mixing of metaphors. Don't try it again until you understand what such metaphors try to convey.
they were magic and could only not be seen by stupid or incompetent people.
You are still totally misunderstanding the story.