That is so true - after hearing complaints about "tax and spend Democrats" for years and years, they make the "borrow and spend Republicans" look like fiscal hawks!
It's not a "monetary" net result, it's an actual, economic (goods and services) one. You sound confused when you write "the number of winners continually shrinks and the number of winners continually grows, and society is further stratified". If you mean that the losers keep on losing and the winners keep on winning, engendering income gaps, then this isn't the mechanism by which that occurs.
Look at it this way - free(-er) trade helps keep your prices at WalMart low. Think of who generally shops at WalMart, and think about how those low prices help them. The "losers" in the free trade game are domestic suppliers who go out of business. Those workers then move into different areas of the economy, where growth is stronger. Now, are there other aspects of economic policy that could help alleviate income gaps? Sure - I support a higher minimum wage, stronger enforcement of immigration laws, etc. But the benefits of free(-er) trade are real, and widespread.
I think the great majority fall under option C - work is what pays the bills, paving the way for the higher priorities in life, like family, hobbies, etc. There's a lotta days I really don't enjoy my job, but it provides an opportunity for us to have a nice home, and allows my wife to stay at home with our 3 kids. For me to pursue a "dream job" like sports writing or academia, we'd take major hits in other areas that just aren't worth it.
As regards these management philosophies, this translates to selecting employees for whom their career is the end-all-be-all. As a manager, that makes a lot of sense, as long as the people are somewhat balanced and won't burn out too soon.
That's an awfully binary way of looking at things. Sure, we don't have free trade, but incremental steps in that direction provide overall benefits to the parties involved (there are some winners and losers, but the net result is positive).
The point is that the state makes a large investment in each of it's citizens (The U.S. less than most first world nations but still sizeable) and that investment anticipates a return.
Yikes, that's a terrifying frame of mind. And here I thought that by paying taxes, it's the citizenry that's investing in the state, not the other way around.
Wrong - if free trade results in importing from another country, that means that consumers here benefit from lower prices. The broader population of consumers benefits more than the domestic suppliers lose, so the overall population benefits.
By the way, if you're that concerned about trade deficits, then we should regulate and encourage online gambling development in the US. As this international industry continues to boom (as it will as India and China grow), I'd rather see some of that money flow through US enterprises and banks rather than Costa Rican ones.
Right on - instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending they can outlaw internet gambling, the US needs to get on board and try to take some leadership in this area. Given the huge amount of cash flow involved, I'm amazed that Congress doesn't want to tap into it rather than try banning it.
Sometimes, it's the rags-to-riches types who go to these extremes, because they're deluded by their own success into believing that they can pull off just about anything, and even in their darkest hour, they've got a plan for wriggling out and turning things around. I'm sure at some point in this whole saga, Lay and Skilling and the rest had a few moments of trepidation when they were crossing the legal line, but a few rationalizations later, they're off and running and all that is in the rearview mirror.
That hard-working, affable manner doesn't excuse their crimes in the least. Let 'em put those skills to work in federal, PMITA prison.
Well said - all too often, these stories just highlight the inability of tech support to communicate effectively (which means understanding your audience).
There certainly are a number of ignorant people out there - I had a neighbor come over one time, sheepishly asking for assistance with the new computer her brought home from the store, as it wouldn't boot up. Turns out he had the mouse/keyboard cables plugged into the opposite sockets, despite clear labelling. When you've got zillions of users, strange stuff happens...
Really, this question only covers half the issue. Along with any estimate of development time comes a degree of confidence, which a manager can use in coordinating tasks. For instance, for a given task, you could say:
1) Best case, 20 hours (25% certainty) 2) More likely, 40 hours (50% certainty) 3) Most likely, 60 hours (75%) 4) Worst case, 80 hours (95%)
In other words, any estimate should be given along with that degree of confidence. That way, if the manager requires something more certain, you have the reasoning in place to support the higher number.
Its only immediately shown in stock price IF investors know enough to correctly calculate that AND they plan on holding the stock. ALmost no investor is- most people invest for the short term. They hold stock less than a year. Due to that, they don't care about long term viability of the company, they care about immediate profits.
You may be thinking of swing or day traders, but the majority of stocks are held by institutions like university endowments, investment banks, pension plans, and mutual funds, which hire full-time analysts to make just such evaluations, and are concerned about long-term valuation.
The company management also has a vested interest in getting the word out about such cost-cutting investments, as a rise in the share price enhances their position in the capital markets.
Frankly, I think the whole "Don't Be Evil" line was made for those still stuck with the heart and mind of a 12 year-old. They're a big-time corporation now, and they're acting like one - pursuing potentially profitable opportunities wherever they can find them. If they can extend their trademark minimalist design and user interface to the payments realm, they may well strike gold here.
That's an interesting feature - I hadn't seen that before. Browsing back to 20010911 brought back some terrible memories.
It's interesting to browse through those stories, and see how many posts there were, within an hour or two of the attacks, saying "now this will result in a war on terror, watch our rights get trimmed, etc." Impressively prescient.
I really take issue with companies whose business models center around taking others to court.
If you RTFA, that's not the business model. It's something they may have to do when patents of theirs (they apply for their own patents as well as buy some up) get infringed and the other party won't agree to license it, but that's no different than any other firm protecting its assets.
The article summary plays up the litigation angle out of all proportion. Getting a variety of top minds to focus on how to make major technological advances is a worthy enterprise.
Tell that to GE. Admittedly, they seem to do the merger thing better than almost anyone, but mergers, when done correctly, can indeed lead to organic growth. Big company acquires smaller one in a niche industry. Big company then pours its resources and expertise into this promising new area and grows that business in a way it never could have otherwise.
Certainly, Microsoft/Yahoo wouldn't be such a case. And frankly, having one player with 44% of the search market and another with 41% isn't very attractive. A Duopoly, after all, isn't very much better than a Monopoly.
Hotmail is perfectly fine, it's just that the parent of this thread made it sound like a service could guarantee that this guy's message could get into user's Inboxes. Hotmail has the option of having a whitelist-only Inbox, so I was pointing out that those services won't do.
Slashdot Mirror
That is so true - after hearing complaints about "tax and spend Democrats" for years and years, they make the "borrow and spend Republicans" look like fiscal hawks!
Yeah, tell that to Johnny Knoxville!
It's not a "monetary" net result, it's an actual, economic (goods and services) one. You sound confused when you write "the number of winners continually shrinks and the number of winners continually grows, and society is further stratified". If you mean that the losers keep on losing and the winners keep on winning, engendering income gaps, then this isn't the mechanism by which that occurs.
Look at it this way - free(-er) trade helps keep your prices at WalMart low. Think of who generally shops at WalMart, and think about how those low prices help them. The "losers" in the free trade game are domestic suppliers who go out of business. Those workers then move into different areas of the economy, where growth is stronger. Now, are there other aspects of economic policy that could help alleviate income gaps? Sure - I support a higher minimum wage, stronger enforcement of immigration laws, etc. But the benefits of free(-er) trade are real, and widespread.
I think the great majority fall under option C - work is what pays the bills, paving the way for the higher priorities in life, like family, hobbies, etc. There's a lotta days I really don't enjoy my job, but it provides an opportunity for us to have a nice home, and allows my wife to stay at home with our 3 kids. For me to pursue a "dream job" like sports writing or academia, we'd take major hits in other areas that just aren't worth it.
As regards these management philosophies, this translates to selecting employees for whom their career is the end-all-be-all. As a manager, that makes a lot of sense, as long as the people are somewhat balanced and won't burn out too soon.
That's an awfully binary way of looking at things. Sure, we don't have free trade, but incremental steps in that direction provide overall benefits to the parties involved (there are some winners and losers, but the net result is positive).
The point is that the state makes a large investment in each of it's citizens (The U.S. less than most first world nations but still sizeable) and that investment anticipates a return.
Yikes, that's a terrifying frame of mind. And here I thought that by paying taxes, it's the citizenry that's investing in the state, not the other way around.
Wrong - if free trade results in importing from another country, that means that consumers here benefit from lower prices. The broader population of consumers benefits more than the domestic suppliers lose, so the overall population benefits.
By the way, if you're that concerned about trade deficits, then we should regulate and encourage online gambling development in the US. As this international industry continues to boom (as it will as India and China grow), I'd rather see some of that money flow through US enterprises and banks rather than Costa Rican ones.
Right on - instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending they can outlaw internet gambling, the US needs to get on board and try to take some leadership in this area. Given the huge amount of cash flow involved, I'm amazed that Congress doesn't want to tap into it rather than try banning it.
An integrated spellchecker sounds dangerous - pulling up a long /. comments page could cause my CPU to melt down...
Exactly - this is about internet boom zillionairres squabbling like toddlers over their bling, more than anything else.
Slave labor? Not that's an idea! Let's go back to galleys, and do something about that 3rd world unemployment rate...
Well, I'm sure there are some in there that would still take care of the PMITA part.
Anyways, I was referring to those types of people, not just Lay in particular.
Oh, and let's parade photos of his dead body through the streets just like we did with that dead terrorist a few months ago.
Prove he's dead.
Now that is a great idea. Let's show some consistency here...
Sometimes, it's the rags-to-riches types who go to these extremes, because they're deluded by their own success into believing that they can pull off just about anything, and even in their darkest hour, they've got a plan for wriggling out and turning things around. I'm sure at some point in this whole saga, Lay and Skilling and the rest had a few moments of trepidation when they were crossing the legal line, but a few rationalizations later, they're off and running and all that is in the rearview mirror.
That hard-working, affable manner doesn't excuse their crimes in the least. Let 'em put those skills to work in federal, PMITA prison.
Well said - all too often, these stories just highlight the inability of tech support to communicate effectively (which means understanding your audience).
There certainly are a number of ignorant people out there - I had a neighbor come over one time, sheepishly asking for assistance with the new computer her brought home from the store, as it wouldn't boot up. Turns out he had the mouse/keyboard cables plugged into the opposite sockets, despite clear labelling. When you've got zillions of users, strange stuff happens...
Really, this question only covers half the issue. Along with any estimate of development time comes a degree of confidence, which a manager can use in coordinating tasks. For instance, for a given task, you could say:
1) Best case, 20 hours (25% certainty)
2) More likely, 40 hours (50% certainty)
3) Most likely, 60 hours (75%)
4) Worst case, 80 hours (95%)
In other words, any estimate should be given along with that degree of confidence. That way, if the manager requires something more certain, you have the reasoning in place to support the higher number.
Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something, but the fact that tin (or aluminum) foil are non-ferrous shouldn't raise a problem around MRI's...
Its only immediately shown in stock price IF investors know enough to correctly calculate that AND they plan on holding the stock. ALmost no investor is- most people invest for the short term. They hold stock less than a year. Due to that, they don't care about long term viability of the company, they care about immediate profits.
You may be thinking of swing or day traders, but the majority of stocks are held by institutions like university endowments, investment banks, pension plans, and mutual funds, which hire full-time analysts to make just such evaluations, and are concerned about long-term valuation.
The company management also has a vested interest in getting the word out about such cost-cutting investments, as a rise in the share price enhances their position in the capital markets.
How is *any* of what you said "evil?"
It's not. That was my point.
Frankly, I think the whole "Don't Be Evil" line was made for those still stuck with the heart and mind of a 12 year-old. They're a big-time corporation now, and they're acting like one - pursuing potentially profitable opportunities wherever they can find them. If they can extend their trademark minimalist design and user interface to the payments realm, they may well strike gold here.
That's an interesting feature - I hadn't seen that before. Browsing back to 20010911 brought back some terrible memories.
It's interesting to browse through those stories, and see how many posts there were, within an hour or two of the attacks, saying "now this will result in a war on terror, watch our rights get trimmed, etc." Impressively prescient.
I really take issue with companies whose business models center around taking others to court.
If you RTFA, that's not the business model. It's something they may have to do when patents of theirs (they apply for their own patents as well as buy some up) get infringed and the other party won't agree to license it, but that's no different than any other firm protecting its assets.
The article summary plays up the litigation angle out of all proportion. Getting a variety of top minds to focus on how to make major technological advances is a worthy enterprise.
True growth can NEVER be achieved by mergers.
Tell that to GE. Admittedly, they seem to do the merger thing better than almost anyone, but mergers, when done correctly, can indeed lead to organic growth. Big company acquires smaller one in a niche industry. Big company then pours its resources and expertise into this promising new area and grows that business in a way it never could have otherwise.
Certainly, Microsoft/Yahoo wouldn't be such a case. And frankly, having one player with 44% of the search market and another with 41% isn't very attractive. A Duopoly, after all, isn't very much better than a Monopoly.
Hotmail is perfectly fine, it's just that the parent of this thread made it sound like a service could guarantee that this guy's message could get into user's Inboxes. Hotmail has the option of having a whitelist-only Inbox, so I was pointing out that those services won't do.