For those of us who don't know a lot about how to value stock, would you (or anyone) be willing in detail to explain this? I think I am not the only one who would like to learn how not to get screwed. Moreover, if the total stock count is secret, how are we to know it? (And how can we verify that we're not being lied to about how many shares there are?)
Put the company's stock ticker symbol in to Google and search. The amount returned is the value of the stock.
If the stock is not publicly traded and no value is returned, then that stock is worth nothing.
Yes, that stock may be worth something some day, but the company might as well be handing out lottery tickets.
The stock granted to non-executive employees in these situations gives you a spot at the very end of the line of people waiting to get money out of the company.
Investors are in front of you. Any new investors putting money in cut in front of you. Vendors and creditors are in front of you. Executives holding preferred shares are in front of you.
Most successful start-ups either remain private or are bought out by a larger competitor. Very very few go public. And that is pretty much the only way your stock will be worth anything.
I'm more disturbed by the fact that a juror taking a case seriously enough to want to learn more about the technical aspects would be vilified by anyone. It may have been against the rules, but an educated jury is certainly not the sort of thing we should be discouraging, despite what lawyers may believe. The information may have been erroneous, but that's why there are 12 people in the room to begin with; to hopefully counteract the stupidity of any one member. I think finding some sort of middle ground would be in the best interest of society as a whole. I don't see any reason why we can't make approved reference material available to a jury unless we really don't give a shit about the people on trial, but only the expediency of pseudo-justice.
It seems like you are trying to paint a picture where juries are asked to make decisions in a vacuum of knowledge. You don't see any reason juries can't have approved reference material because there is no reason and juries do have access to such materials as it is!
That approved reference material is called "evidence" and "testimony".
What this juror did in this case was to go outside of those approved reference materials and to the worst possible sort of reference!
How do we know the defendant didn't update the Wiki pages related to the changes in the case to spin the definitions to his advantage?
That's fine if, for example, you're looking for a pair of Levi jeans. You want the Levi jeans in your size at the lowest price.
But what if you want a pair of jeans, from any manufacturer, that will last? What if you're shopping for quality, does your app do that?
No, it doesn't, because the only jeans worth owning were made 20 years ago (or more). Anything made today is crap because everyone is competing on price alone.
And yes, I do put my money where my mouth is. I am willing to pay more for goods from manufacturers with a reputation for quality and good customer reviews. And no, I do not buy jeans.
I could go on a rant that companies can complete on something other than price; that you could offer customers a product that stands out in terms of quality or style; that some people do more than just buy at lowest possible price and not everything is a commodity.
But that would be a waste of time. Yes, such customers exist, but there are so few of them it's not worth mentioning to most retailers.
Just like the modern economy is a widening chasm between the poor and the rich, the marketplace will be dominated by the Walmarts where the $1.00 pack of 12 socks are made by children in near slave labor conditions paid pennies a day for socks that fall apart after a single use (but for $1, who complains?), and the high-end boutique where the $80 per pair socks are made by children in near slave labor conditions paid pennies a day for socks that fall apart after a single use (but wearing the same sock twice is for poor people).
The place I worked had an open plane. My team members had connecting desks to each other. If I needed anything (since I worked in ICT - needing someone else is common) - all I had to do it talk, or move my chair a bit.
I would love to go back to a cubicle.
I am the guy stuck sitting next to you. While you get your quick response by leaning over, I get my train of thought derailed.
And most of the time, you're bugging me for something you should be able to find for yourself in the documentation or something you should be doing yourself.
The rest of the office does not exist to do your bidding. Maybe having your own space is bad for your morale, because then you'd have to do your own work, but for me, having my own defined space where I can concentrate without interruption, increases my morale by about 1000%.
If you really use it sparingly, you won't miss it. You'll hold down shift for an extra 4 seconds per week.
While their explanation about it improving comments is obviously bullshit, I like the decision anyway. Every single time I ever press caps lock, it's an accident.
If I may get overdramatic, having a caps lock key on your keyboard, is like having a bear trap on your desk. As long as you stay away from it, it's harmless. But it never under any circumstances ever ever helps you, and sometimes you accidently go near it.
Like the fire department. You only use that sparingly, right?
Having a caps lock key is like having a bear trap on your desk, if you work in an office with the occasional bear.
Most of the time it sits there taking up space. But when you use it, it's the right tool for the job.
I only hope these policies are not Apple's undoing because it would be a real shame.
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should someone have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that your business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of your *(%*# business.
I don't understand why these companies feel entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why they need it in the first place. In a sane world, corporations would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.
In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.
Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.
Personally, I'd rather see companies who insist on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.
I think what you're missing in this case is you are the customer, the magazine is the business you're dealing with, and Apple is the 3rd party company insisting on having your credit card details.
Let's look at your comment with some of the pronouns filled in.
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should Apple have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that Apple's business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of Apple's *(%*# business.
I don't understand why Apple feel[s] entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why Apple need[s] it in the first place. In a sane world, Apple would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.
In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.
Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.
Personally, I'd rather see Apple who insist[s] on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.
I'm going to make the same argument, but in the opposite direction.
If I call the magazine to purchase a subscription and have the magazine delivered by USPS, neither the phone company nor the post office needs my credit card data.
The phone lines and postage need to be paid for, but those parties need no access to the particulars of my transaction with the magazine company.
Likewise, Apple is just connecting one entity to another. If I've paid Apple for the iPad and paid AT&T for the bandwidth, why does either need to know which credit card I used for the magazine subscription?
If Apple's business model depends on selling me the hardware and software and getting a kick back on all data passing through the device, too bad for them.
And it would be quite simple to identify if your offspring were to mysteriously gain great wealth (through what, babysitting?) at almost exactly the rate the parent/s lost it.
So you propose to outlaw Christmas? And birthday presents. And gifts of any kind.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Case B is just as nepotistic/selfish as Case A.
OK. What if instead of parent/child, we're talking about spouses? Should homemakers be left destitute? It's only fair, right? You've lived off the income of this other person for decades, why should you continue to live off this wealth you didn't earn?
And I'm sure when the gift police aren't snatching presents out from under the Christmas tree, they can track any selfish transfer of wealth between spouses.
I still don't think you've thought this all the way through. And I still don't think the results of a 100% estate tax would be fair or equal.
A 100% estate tax would be extremely regressive against the less well-off, quite unfair, and certainly unequal.
In case A, I am wealthy. I have more money than I could spend in 100 lifetimes. My coat tails could extend for generations. Faced with a 100% estate tax, I simply give a large amount of my money to family and friends before I die.
Since I can afford the best lawyers and accountants, I likely end up with close to nothing left of my personal fortune when I die. In fact, I've given everything away and live in a house owned by my children when I die.
Death tax paid as percentage of my total net worth at its peak: roughly 0%.
Case B, I am poor. I have a job, but essentially live paycheck-to-paycheck. What little I have, I'd like to pass down to my children before I die.
But most of the net worth is tied up in my house. I am lucky to have a place to live, but I could never give my house away. The gift taxes would be more than I (or my children) could afford without selling the house first.
When I die, my house goes to the state to be auctioned.
Death tax paid as percentage of my total net worth at its peak: roughly 100%.
So the issue is 2 teachers and not the entire school or district.
But still, that any professional involved with education could think pencils are too dangerous for students to carry around, what's next? No books--wouldn't want a paper cut? How long before American public schooling consists of children sitting silently on the floor all day because any action with any object could result in someone getting hurt?
Before you dismiss that as a ridiculous extreme, allow me to point you to the story about 2 teachers who wanted to ban students from bringing pencils to school.
Why is it, when technology has both a useful and an annoying potential use, it's 10 times more likely the annoying use gets implemented?
For example, my car has a seat belt light that comes on if there is a front-seat passenger who is not wearing a seat belt. No passenger, no light. My car also has a passenger-side airbag, which is disabled if there is no passenger.
But for the built-in nav system, the controls are disabled even when there is a passenger.
This makes no sense to me. What's the use of having a second person in the car if they can't act as navigator?
Sensors could easily be built in to the steering wheel to enable all interactive systems when the driver has both hands on the wheel.
I get that I shouldn't talk on my cell phone or text while driving, and I don't. But why shouldn't my passenger be able to make a call or look for the nearest gas station on the GPS?
This is just one more thing that will have to be cracked.
...random texts once a week waking me up at 3am indicating that:
"This is a test of the local emergency cell phone text system. This is only a test. If this had been an actual emergency, hopefully you haven't disabled text alerts in the middle of the night after receiving all our obnoxious tests."
Why is this 'Funny'? Obviously the mods don't watch television.
For most of the country, the number of tests will far outweigh the number of actual useful notices.
This is more an annoyance generator than emergency broadcast system.
If this is done, it absolutely should be opt-in only.
Yes, if you are in tornado alley, this might be useful.
I am not. So my ratio of actual emergencies to annoying tests is somewhere around 1:1000.
I don't care if it's 'only' 20 cents. I don't care if it's free. I don't care if THEY pay ME 20 cents for every message.
This is an idea so horribly annoying, I'm surprised it hasn't been done sooner.
Oh, and in the 12 years I've been living the Massachusetts, the 2 times there was an actual emergency broadcast that was not a test, both were complete duds. Of the type, "Snow-mageddon is upon us! Make peace with your deity of choice and prepare to meet thy doom." Followed by clear skies and no snow.
I have deep, throbbing hatred for anyone who helps this system come to pass, and a strong dislike to anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
The only way anything like this should be legal if it is strictly opt-in.
It wouldn't be revolutionaries with guns vs an army with guns any more. It'd be revolutionaries with assault rifles vs an army with carpet bombing aircraft.
Which is why Vietnam, Iraq II and Afghanistan were all such easy victories.
It's not that it will be easier or harder. It will be different.
When both sides have guns, you have to be willing to kill for your cause.
When you're on the short side of asymmetric warfare, you have to be willing to die for your cause.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of us who don't know a lot about how to value stock, would you (or anyone) be willing in detail to explain this? I think I am not the only one who would like to learn how not to get screwed. Moreover, if the total stock count is secret, how are we to know it? (And how can we verify that we're not being lied to about how many shares there are?)
Put the company's stock ticker symbol in to Google and search. The amount returned is the value of the stock.
If the stock is not publicly traded and no value is returned, then that stock is worth nothing.
Yes, that stock may be worth something some day, but the company might as well be handing out lottery tickets.
The stock granted to non-executive employees in these situations gives you a spot at the very end of the line of people waiting to get money out of the company.
Investors are in front of you. Any new investors putting money in cut in front of you. Vendors and creditors are in front of you. Executives holding preferred shares are in front of you.
Most successful start-ups either remain private or are bought out by a larger competitor. Very very few go public. And that is pretty much the only way your stock will be worth anything.
If given the choice, take the lottery tickets.
And Generalissismo Francisco Franco is still dead. Your point?
The point is, it's getting hot in here.
These results are only surprises to anyone who hasn't heard of any of the previous studies on this matter.
The result is obvious when you know the main vector for the spread of bacteria by humans is the hands. The things we touch are dirty.
The dirtiest place in a public restroom is the door handle everyone touches on the way out.
Plus, even the dirtiest public toilet gets cleaned once in a while. How often do the buttons on an ATM, pay phone, or vending machine get disinfected?
File this under old, old news.
The person who came up with it did not say all smart people fall in to these 3 categories.
He said some smart people fall in to these categories.
So who's the retard?
Why does he keep calling Fred Haise 'Roger'?
I appreciate the historical and scientific significance, but it reads like an Airplane! script.
I'm more disturbed by the fact that a juror taking a case seriously enough to want to learn more about the technical aspects would be vilified by anyone. It may have been against the rules, but an educated jury is certainly not the sort of thing we should be discouraging, despite what lawyers may believe. The information may have been erroneous, but that's why there are 12 people in the room to begin with; to hopefully counteract the stupidity of any one member. I think finding some sort of middle ground would be in the best interest of society as a whole. I don't see any reason why we can't make approved reference material available to a jury unless we really don't give a shit about the people on trial, but only the expediency of pseudo-justice.
It seems like you are trying to paint a picture where juries are asked to make decisions in a vacuum of knowledge. You don't see any reason juries can't have approved reference material because there is no reason and juries do have access to such materials as it is!
That approved reference material is called "evidence" and "testimony".
What this juror did in this case was to go outside of those approved reference materials and to the worst possible sort of reference!
How do we know the defendant didn't update the Wiki pages related to the changes in the case to spin the definitions to his advantage?
That's fine if, for example, you're looking for a pair of Levi jeans. You want the Levi jeans in your size at the lowest price.
But what if you want a pair of jeans, from any manufacturer, that will last? What if you're shopping for quality, does your app do that?
No, it doesn't, because the only jeans worth owning were made 20 years ago (or more). Anything made today is crap because everyone is competing on price alone.
And yes, I do put my money where my mouth is. I am willing to pay more for goods from manufacturers with a reputation for quality and good customer reviews. And no, I do not buy jeans.
I could go on a rant that companies can complete on something other than price; that you could offer customers a product that stands out in terms of quality or style; that some people do more than just buy at lowest possible price and not everything is a commodity.
But that would be a waste of time. Yes, such customers exist, but there are so few of them it's not worth mentioning to most retailers.
Just like the modern economy is a widening chasm between the poor and the rich, the marketplace will be dominated by the Walmarts where the $1.00 pack of 12 socks are made by children in near slave labor conditions paid pennies a day for socks that fall apart after a single use (but for $1, who complains?), and the high-end boutique where the $80 per pair socks are made by children in near slave labor conditions paid pennies a day for socks that fall apart after a single use (but wearing the same sock twice is for poor people).
The place I worked had an open plane. My team members had connecting desks to each other. If I needed anything (since I worked in ICT - needing someone else is common) - all I had to do it talk, or move my chair a bit.
I would love to go back to a cubicle.
I am the guy stuck sitting next to you. While you get your quick response by leaning over, I get my train of thought derailed.
And most of the time, you're bugging me for something you should be able to find for yourself in the documentation or something you should be doing yourself.
The rest of the office does not exist to do your bidding. Maybe having your own space is bad for your morale, because then you'd have to do your own work, but for me, having my own defined space where I can concentrate without interruption, increases my morale by about 1000%.
For modern web-based applications, you are correct that there is little or no reason for the Caps Lock key.
But for the MILLIONS of people whose job requires them to use antiquated legacy systems, it is often essential.
So anything that is not a "modern web-based application" is an "antiquated legacy system"?
If you really use it sparingly, you won't miss it. You'll hold down shift for an extra 4 seconds per week.
While their explanation about it improving comments is obviously bullshit, I like the decision anyway. Every single time I ever press caps lock, it's an accident.
If I may get overdramatic, having a caps lock key on your keyboard, is like having a bear trap on your desk. As long as you stay away from it, it's harmless. But it never under any circumstances ever ever helps you, and sometimes you accidently go near it.
Like the fire department. You only use that sparingly, right?
Having a caps lock key is like having a bear trap on your desk, if you work in an office with the occasional bear.
Most of the time it sits there taking up space. But when you use it, it's the right tool for the job.
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should someone have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that your business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of your *(%*# business.
I don't understand why these companies feel entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why they need it in the first place. In a sane world, corporations would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.
Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.
Personally, I'd rather see companies who insist on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.
I think what you're missing in this case is you are the customer, the magazine is the business you're dealing with, and Apple is the 3rd party company insisting on having your credit card details.
Let's look at your comment with some of the pronouns filled in.
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should Apple have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that Apple's business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of Apple's *(%*# business.
I don't understand why Apple feel[s] entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why Apple need[s] it in the first place. In a sane world, Apple would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.
Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.
Personally, I'd rather see Apple who insist[s] on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.
Do you see?
I'm going to make the same argument, but in the opposite direction.
If I call the magazine to purchase a subscription and have the magazine delivered by USPS, neither the phone company nor the post office needs my credit card data.
The phone lines and postage need to be paid for, but those parties need no access to the particulars of my transaction with the magazine company.
Likewise, Apple is just connecting one entity to another. If I've paid Apple for the iPad and paid AT&T for the bandwidth, why does either need to know which credit card I used for the magazine subscription?
If Apple's business model depends on selling me the hardware and software and getting a kick back on all data passing through the device, too bad for them.
Hey Vatican, what part of Thou Shalt Not Steal did you misunderstand?!
You're talking about a place full of false idols and graven images.
They likely haven't even read the 10 commandments, let alone follow any of them.
When everyone is doing it, is it even still cheating?
Yes.
Preferably ass pennies.
And it would be quite simple to identify if your offspring were to mysteriously gain great wealth (through what, babysitting?) at almost exactly the rate the parent/s lost it.
So you propose to outlaw Christmas? And birthday presents. And gifts of any kind.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Case B is just as nepotistic/selfish as Case A.
OK. What if instead of parent/child, we're talking about spouses? Should homemakers be left destitute? It's only fair, right? You've lived off the income of this other person for decades, why should you continue to live off this wealth you didn't earn?
And I'm sure when the gift police aren't snatching presents out from under the Christmas tree, they can track any selfish transfer of wealth between spouses.
I still don't think you've thought this all the way through. And I still don't think the results of a 100% estate tax would be fair or equal.
You've got it completely backwards.
A 100% estate tax would be extremely regressive against the less well-off, quite unfair, and certainly unequal.
In case A, I am wealthy. I have more money than I could spend in 100 lifetimes. My coat tails could extend for generations. Faced with a 100% estate tax, I simply give a large amount of my money to family and friends before I die.
Since I can afford the best lawyers and accountants, I likely end up with close to nothing left of my personal fortune when I die. In fact, I've given everything away and live in a house owned by my children when I die.
Death tax paid as percentage of my total net worth at its peak: roughly 0%.
Case B, I am poor. I have a job, but essentially live paycheck-to-paycheck. What little I have, I'd like to pass down to my children before I die.
But most of the net worth is tied up in my house. I am lucky to have a place to live, but I could never give my house away. The gift taxes would be more than I (or my children) could afford without selling the house first.
When I die, my house goes to the state to be auctioned.
Death tax paid as percentage of my total net worth at its peak: roughly 100%.
How is that fair and equal???????????
So the issue is 2 teachers and not the entire school or district.
But still, that any professional involved with education could think pencils are too dangerous for students to carry around, what's next? No books--wouldn't want a paper cut? How long before American public schooling consists of children sitting silently on the floor all day because any action with any object could result in someone getting hurt?
Before you dismiss that as a ridiculous extreme, allow me to point you to the story about 2 teachers who wanted to ban students from bringing pencils to school.
Sure it's only 2 teachers. For now.
You should add a forth box.
Why is it, when technology has both a useful and an annoying potential use, it's 10 times more likely the annoying use gets implemented?
For example, my car has a seat belt light that comes on if there is a front-seat passenger who is not wearing a seat belt. No passenger, no light. My car also has a passenger-side airbag, which is disabled if there is no passenger.
But for the built-in nav system, the controls are disabled even when there is a passenger.
This makes no sense to me. What's the use of having a second person in the car if they can't act as navigator?
Sensors could easily be built in to the steering wheel to enable all interactive systems when the driver has both hands on the wheel.
I get that I shouldn't talk on my cell phone or text while driving, and I don't. But why shouldn't my passenger be able to make a call or look for the nearest gas station on the GPS?
This is just one more thing that will have to be cracked.
...random texts once a week waking me up at 3am indicating that:
"This is a test of the local emergency cell phone text system. This is only a test. If this had been an actual emergency, hopefully you haven't disabled text alerts in the middle of the night after receiving all our obnoxious tests."
Why is this 'Funny'? Obviously the mods don't watch television.
For most of the country, the number of tests will far outweigh the number of actual useful notices.
This is more an annoyance generator than emergency broadcast system.
If this is done, it absolutely should be opt-in only.
Yes, if you are in tornado alley, this might be useful.
I am not. So my ratio of actual emergencies to annoying tests is somewhere around 1:1000.
I don't care if it's 'only' 20 cents. I don't care if it's free. I don't care if THEY pay ME 20 cents for every message.
This is an idea so horribly annoying, I'm surprised it hasn't been done sooner.
Oh, and in the 12 years I've been living the Massachusetts, the 2 times there was an actual emergency broadcast that was not a test, both were complete duds. Of the type, "Snow-mageddon is upon us! Make peace with your deity of choice and prepare to meet thy doom." Followed by clear skies and no snow.
I have deep, throbbing hatred for anyone who helps this system come to pass, and a strong dislike to anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
The only way anything like this should be legal if it is strictly opt-in.
Seriously. This is a bad idea.
It wouldn't be revolutionaries with guns vs an army with guns any more. It'd be revolutionaries with assault rifles vs an army with carpet bombing aircraft.
Which is why Vietnam, Iraq II and Afghanistan were all such easy victories.
It's not that it will be easier or harder. It will be different.
When both sides have guns, you have to be willing to kill for your cause.
When you're on the short side of asymmetric warfare, you have to be willing to die for your cause.
No, it works!
What everyone else sees is: