People, even the media, consistently refer to President Obama as just "Obama".
The only time you'd use the honorific is when you're addressing him directly.
I gave up on fighting against the astroturfers here a few years back... wasn't worth the effort and stress anymore. I can still get good discussion about topics that matter to me at reddit -- just need to stay away from some of the subreddits there.
Every once in a while I come check on Slashdot, and remember anew why I left. The place went to shit once the sockpuppet accounts got critical mass on mod points.
That's not what goodwill is at all.
Goodwill is an asset on your books that arises from paying more for an acquisition than the valuation of that acquisition.
It has nothing to do with how the public perceives a company.
I'm generally aware of the rising importance of inheritance on wealth inequality, but do you have any source or data where we can see that the majority of millionaires are such because they inherited their wealth?
I know a lot of boomer millionaires, and most weren't born into it. Most saved a lot during the 60s, 70s and 80s to get there.
I think your point holds true for people with net worth > 10 million. But a million dollars isn't much these days.
the problem is that both wings of SCOTUS have now accepted the "living Constitution" model where its meaning changes continuously, even if folks like Scalia deny it.
But that's not what a "living constitution" is. We have a "living" constitution because it can be changed. Not because we choose to interpret it differently.
There is NO correlation between one's major, and one's social life.
Source, please? That's a hell of a claim.
There have been numerous studies showing that there are strong correlations between certain MBTI types and certain majors; I'm not saying MBTI is a proxy for "social life", but at least introversion/extroversion play into types of interaction in social life.
and basically all paper (it's just cheaper for paper).
A lot of the paper pulp is coming from tropical palm plantations; they are much quicker to yield than temperate forests. Paper pulp demand is still causing deforestation in tropical areas, just not so much in the US.
A school, I might add, that couldn't even COMPREHEND THE EXISTENCE of stagflation
What do you mean? Keynes modeled stagflation; he didn't use that term, but it's clear that Keynes, and those who studied his work, were aware of the effect of a supply shock on an economy.
The issue with Keynesian policy and stagflation is, given two problems with conflicting resolutions, how do you address both of them?
We now know that tackling them one at a time works. First you address inflation, then you address stagnation. This isn't a weakness of Keynesian theory -- it's validation.
SF is the art of the technical class. The central message is "You can fix it or create wonders by applying intelligence and dilligence to the problem."
Huh? That is not the central message of SF. That is one single theme used in some SF, and used in the most generic sci-fi out there. The conflict is man v. nature/technology or man v. society (or even man v. self), where the virtues extolled are up to the writer. Besides intelligence and diligence, some other virtues often key in SF include self-reliance, capacity for specific emotions (love/empathy/etc), having morals, willingness to deviate from the norm, etc.
Mainstream fiction is the propaganda of control of the general population: The central message is futility
What the hell kind of mainstream fiction did YOU read that was contemporary with Bradbury? In 1953, when Fahrenheit 451 was published, the books that topped the Adult Fiction bestseller charts were: The Silver Chalice (Costain), East of Eden (Steinbeck), Desiree (Selinko), Beyond This Place (Cronin), and Lord Vanity (Shellabarger). None of these books had a message of futility OR conformity; very much the opposite.
You are saying that Bradbury imported the mainstream fiction message of "Do what the authorities tell you to do. No matrer HOW badly they're doing and HOW bad things get, don't try to improve them. Anything you try will make them worse.". Not only was that not the mainstream message of the day, you would be hard-pressed to find that as a theme in any of Bradbury's works. I ask you to please name a single work of Bradbury's where this could conceivably be the case.
>It's 2015. Why does transferring money in the US take more than a minute and a few cents?
I transfer money via ACH all the time for $1 per transaction.
Manual wires are different, and have a lot of costs associated with them. There are people involved, not just data being pushed.
Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.
Wait, what?
I recall Alex coming on Slashdot a lot to promote Reddit when he first launched it. "An experiment in free speech" was not anything I recall being discussed. I also remember him posting on Slashdot while still developing reddit.
What I recall, is promotion of a general interest platform that was more open than Slashdot (unlimited moderations for all!) and less susceptible to vote brigading than Digg.
It was while ago, so I may be a bit foggy on the specifics.
I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.
First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.
Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?
What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle? Do you mean crop rotation? Or something else entirely?
Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).
This is still a terrible measure, because bible-belt Southerners average close to 7%, while New Englanders average under 3% (source [philanthropy.com]).
It's also a terrible measure because giving to a church is not always the same as giving to a charity. Not saying that all churches aren't charities, just that some spend quite a lot less on charitable works than some other charities.
You're referencing a character who first appeared on the Simpsons in the 90s... before SAP software as a class even existed.
What? ERP systems have been around since the 70s... SAP released R/2 in '79. If you're talking about R/3 (when they introduced server-client architecture), it was released in 1992.
Today, you usually know who's calling before you answer. It may be appropriate to take a call if it's more important than the meeting. If you're in sales, a call from a major customer is probably more important than a meeting.
Sure, but not in the meeting. Excuse yourself, and explain it's an extremely important customer call that absolutely cannot wait.
And even if this is the case, you're still being rude... just with an excuse. The call may be more important to you, but the other people in the meeting? You're wasting their time.
If you've blocked out time for a meeting, don't take calls during that time. It's rude and unprofessional.
Note: This is for orgs that have effective meetings. If your meetings are generally unproductive, it may be a different story...
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true. Some states require that, but it is not national law.
0) iPod: No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
People, even the media, consistently refer to President Obama as just "Obama". The only time you'd use the honorific is when you're addressing him directly.
Just move on from Slashdot.
I gave up on fighting against the astroturfers here a few years back... wasn't worth the effort and stress anymore. I can still get good discussion about topics that matter to me at reddit -- just need to stay away from some of the subreddits there.
Every once in a while I come check on Slashdot, and remember anew why I left. The place went to shit once the sockpuppet accounts got critical mass on mod points.
That's not what goodwill is at all. Goodwill is an asset on your books that arises from paying more for an acquisition than the valuation of that acquisition. It has nothing to do with how the public perceives a company.
FYI if the assets aren't in service they wouldn't be depreciated. Only once they are put in service is depreciation started.
How about back in 2006?
I'm generally aware of the rising importance of inheritance on wealth inequality, but do you have any source or data where we can see that the majority of millionaires are such because they inherited their wealth?
I know a lot of boomer millionaires, and most weren't born into it. Most saved a lot during the 60s, 70s and 80s to get there.
I think your point holds true for people with net worth > 10 million. But a million dollars isn't much these days.
But that's not what a "living constitution" is. We have a "living" constitution because it can be changed. Not because we choose to interpret it differently.
But that's not a transposition error. A transposition error is when you type "47" instead of "74"... the two keystrokes are transposed.
"general corporate purposes"
Like executive compensation?
Source, please? That's a hell of a claim.
There have been numerous studies showing that there are strong correlations between certain MBTI types and certain majors; I'm not saying MBTI is a proxy for "social life", but at least introversion/extroversion play into types of interaction in social life.
A lot of the paper pulp is coming from tropical palm plantations; they are much quicker to yield than temperate forests. Paper pulp demand is still causing deforestation in tropical areas, just not so much in the US.
What do you mean? Keynes modeled stagflation; he didn't use that term, but it's clear that Keynes, and those who studied his work, were aware of the effect of a supply shock on an economy.
The issue with Keynesian policy and stagflation is, given two problems with conflicting resolutions, how do you address both of them?
We now know that tackling them one at a time works. First you address inflation, then you address stagnation. This isn't a weakness of Keynesian theory -- it's validation.
Huh? That is not the central message of SF. That is one single theme used in some SF, and used in the most generic sci-fi out there. The conflict is man v. nature/technology or man v. society (or even man v. self), where the virtues extolled are up to the writer. Besides intelligence and diligence, some other virtues often key in SF include self-reliance, capacity for specific emotions (love/empathy/etc), having morals, willingness to deviate from the norm, etc.
What the hell kind of mainstream fiction did YOU read that was contemporary with Bradbury? In 1953, when Fahrenheit 451 was published, the books that topped the Adult Fiction bestseller charts were: The Silver Chalice (Costain), East of Eden (Steinbeck), Desiree (Selinko), Beyond This Place (Cronin), and Lord Vanity (Shellabarger). None of these books had a message of futility OR conformity; very much the opposite.
You are saying that Bradbury imported the mainstream fiction message of "Do what the authorities tell you to do. No matrer HOW badly they're doing and HOW bad things get, don't try to improve them. Anything you try will make them worse.". Not only was that not the mainstream message of the day, you would be hard-pressed to find that as a theme in any of Bradbury's works. I ask you to please name a single work of Bradbury's where this could conceivably be the case.
>It's 2015. Why does transferring money in the US take more than a minute and a few cents? I transfer money via ACH all the time for $1 per transaction.
Manual wires are different, and have a lot of costs associated with them. There are people involved, not just data being pushed.
Yes, but you claiming that it must be cyclical to be truly organic... well, "No true Scotsman..." seems to apply.
You are co-opting the term organic to mean something extra.
Wait, what?
I recall Alex coming on Slashdot a lot to promote Reddit when he first launched it. "An experiment in free speech" was not anything I recall being discussed. I also remember him posting on Slashdot while still developing reddit.
What I recall, is promotion of a general interest platform that was more open than Slashdot (unlimited moderations for all!) and less susceptible to vote brigading than Digg.
It was while ago, so I may be a bit foggy on the specifics.
First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.
Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?
Note: I am far from libertarian.
What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle? Do you mean crop rotation? Or something else entirely?
Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).
He's been at it for years. Don't feed the troll.
This is still a terrible measure, because bible-belt Southerners average close to 7%, while New Englanders average under 3% (source [philanthropy.com]).
It's also a terrible measure because giving to a church is not always the same as giving to a charity. Not saying that all churches aren't charities, just that some spend quite a lot less on charitable works than some other charities.
"Lush" is a standard common usage word that is neither copyrightable, nor trademarkable.
Not very familiar with trademarks, huh?
What? ERP systems have been around since the 70s... SAP released R/2 in '79. If you're talking about R/3 (when they introduced server-client architecture), it was released in 1992.
Sure, but not in the meeting. Excuse yourself, and explain it's an extremely important customer call that absolutely cannot wait.
And even if this is the case, you're still being rude... just with an excuse. The call may be more important to you, but the other people in the meeting? You're wasting their time.
If you've blocked out time for a meeting, don't take calls during that time. It's rude and unprofessional.
Note: This is for orgs that have effective meetings. If your meetings are generally unproductive, it may be a different story...