Where he was writing about how some start-ups are working from the business model of The Producers.
I find this high interest in off-loading risk onto another company a tiny bit suspect.
Maybe that's why most firms enabling this sort of activity want to see the business model up and running before they get too frisky thinking about an acquisition.
My advice -- get the damn thing up and working. Prove there's an audience. And then you won't need anyone to act as your agent. They'll be knocking at your door.
Stop being pussies and trying to transfer risk. Move forward with your business model and impress someone.
Boskop is, at best, an example of a statistical outlier being blown out of proportion. The vast majority of skulls from that region and that era are of equal size to contemporary skulls found elsewhere on the planet from that period.
Sure, it's on a "blog". But, it is a blog backed by Discovery. Frankly, it lends credence to a widely discredit theory without even bothering to engage in due diligence. In fact, it uses the higher-end reported skull sizes to compile an "average" brain volume.
I didn't say anything about the left-right spectrum. I just asked why commies in particular have a thing for sexual hang-ups. Most totalitarian strains at least try to mix it up. With communism it's a surefire thing.
The problem with the US us that we don't have one law, we have 51 separate legal systems, each with a major complex about the idea that there will ever be a single legal system.
The American legal was built of the perceived need for compromise after the Revolution to keep the nation together despite its vast differences over slavery.
The upshot of that autonomy is that at least tolerant states have a chance to act as testbeds.
The Soviets had a fetish for persecuting gay people. Now the Red Chinese have developed a fetish for stopping porn. Were the Soviet-Chinese border wars of the 1960s actually conflicts over gay porn?
It seems like it would be easier to let people have their perceived perversions within a communist framework than to go all-out against yet another thing. I understand that it's not the nature of totalitarian regimes to let any erratic behavior slide, but still . . . It's just weird that every single communist regime ever has had it in for some type of sexual hang-up.
So, I assume performance-wise this mean going from the equivalent of a 700 MHz P3 to a 1 GHz P3.
Sorry, but truth be told, the balance of performance and power consumption right now favors using the Pentium Dual Cores. The Atom is a niche product that works best with stuff like cash registers.
Since it is such an obvious case, it is clear that MS's only motivation to settle would be to avoid costs. Hopefully, MS sees the moral hazard in encouraging such blatant criminal behavior, and instead decides to counter sue.
The very first complaint filed should be against the plaintiff's attorney, for failing to do due diligence. (This is a law in most states, I swear.)
The only meaningful argument against maximizing profits would be if the board feels something is in the long-term interest of the company.
After all, smart companies stay in cash. Look at Google and Wal-Mart. Now, the shareholders can't have a giant freakout and say, "Pay us out some of that extra cash! Now!" It is in the long term interest of the company to have cash for both stability and expansion.
I throw that out there just to clarify the point that a shareholding company is to be treated as a common good for long term wealth, as opposed to the ever-present ponzi schemes that pass themselves off as corps.
Can't mod a thread I'm in, so I'll just say thank you.
You can't just run a publicly-traded company into a ditch and say, "Well, we were the majority shareholder, so tough shit."
There is a reason some entities acquire companies and then take them private. If the government felt the need to buy the remaining 20% out and then take AIG private . . . that's different.
If the government went forward with a plan like this, I guarantee you it wouldn't take ten minutes after the announcement before someone was trying to get an injunction stopping it.
Being 80% owned does not integrate a corporation into the entity that owns it. Trust me, Verizon has been using the exact theory for decades to lock Verizon Wireless workers out of the main Verizon company's collective bargaining agreement. Also, ask the Rigases (who owned Adelphia) if full ownership entitles you to complete run of the company -- it can be a jailable offense if you go about owning the company you own to aggressively.
A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues. It's very likely that if the government, as 80% owner, tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20% could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company.
China's economy is based on the fact that even the smallest American business can call some company with a plant in Guangzhou and have a freighter full of useless crap only Americans would buy shipped for practically no cost. The weak yuan policy is, in essence, a means of exporting unemployment to other countries by ensuring that China is the preferred manufacturer of cheap stuff. A strong Yuan means higher unemployment -- something the Chinese government is so deathly afraid of that they're willing to turn a blind eye to their giant stake in America's growing fiduciary irresponsibility. The last thing the Chinese government wants is a rise in unemployment, so the last thing they want is a string yuan.
Large-scale execution in China frequently follow years of ignoring a problem. Look at the number of contractors who were executed after the Sichuan disaster last year. The Communist Party in China tends to think a massive over-reaction is the right response after years of neglect.
Slashdot Mirror
Tallest free-standing structure is a sign standing next to the Burj Dubai saying, "Our mountain of debt is this high."
Follow that last sentence: " but is almost entirely irrelevant."
Someone needs to teach this dipshit how to lie. It's not almost entirely that hard.
I'm judging you've never run into the term "weasel words"?
Actually, not a bad business plan. Where are my mod points when I need them?
Where he was writing about how some start-ups are working from the business model of The Producers.
I find this high interest in off-loading risk onto another company a tiny bit suspect.
Maybe that's why most firms enabling this sort of activity want to see the business model up and running before they get too frisky thinking about an acquisition.
My advice -- get the damn thing up and working. Prove there's an audience. And then you won't need anyone to act as your agent. They'll be knocking at your door.
Stop being pussies and trying to transfer risk. Move forward with your business model and impress someone.
The only way this guy gets appointed is if the politicians all sympathize with him. Not an unlikely outcome, it should be noted.
Boskop is, at best, an example of a statistical outlier being blown out of proportion. The vast majority of skulls from that region and that era are of equal size to contemporary skulls found elsewhere on the planet from that period.
Sure, it's on a "blog". But, it is a blog backed by Discovery. Frankly, it lends credence to a widely discredit theory without even bothering to engage in due diligence. In fact, it uses the higher-end reported skull sizes to compile an "average" brain volume.
Lazy for Discovery. Lazy for Slashdot.
I didn't say anything about the left-right spectrum. I just asked why commies in particular have a thing for sexual hang-ups. Most totalitarian strains at least try to mix it up. With communism it's a surefire thing.
Also, it was kind of a half joke.
The problem with the US us that we don't have one law, we have 51 separate legal systems, each with a major complex about the idea that there will ever be a single legal system.
The American legal was built of the perceived need for compromise after the Revolution to keep the nation together despite its vast differences over slavery.
The upshot of that autonomy is that at least tolerant states have a chance to act as testbeds.
The Soviets had a fetish for persecuting gay people. Now the Red Chinese have developed a fetish for stopping porn. Were the Soviet-Chinese border wars of the 1960s actually conflicts over gay porn?
It seems like it would be easier to let people have their perceived perversions within a communist framework than to go all-out against yet another thing. I understand that it's not the nature of totalitarian regimes to let any erratic behavior slide, but still . . . It's just weird that every single communist regime ever has had it in for some type of sexual hang-up.
Point taken. A study in the moral hazards of being too anti-anything without thought for what could be worse.
So, I assume performance-wise this mean going from the equivalent of a 700 MHz P3 to a 1 GHz P3.
Sorry, but truth be told, the balance of performance and power consumption right now favors using the Pentium Dual Cores. The Atom is a niche product that works best with stuff like cash registers.
Sorry, but I don't see what a random rant about Apple has to do with this.
Since it is such an obvious case, it is clear that MS's only motivation to settle would be to avoid costs. Hopefully, MS sees the moral hazard in encouraging such blatant criminal behavior, and instead decides to counter sue.
The very first complaint filed should be against the plaintiff's attorney, for failing to do due diligence. (This is a law in most states, I swear.)
Thank you.
Let's settle on the simplest agreement possible: if the government does this, there will be some major case law decided before it is over.
The only meaningful argument against maximizing profits would be if the board feels something is in the long-term interest of the company.
After all, smart companies stay in cash. Look at Google and Wal-Mart. Now, the shareholders can't have a giant freakout and say, "Pay us out some of that extra cash! Now!" It is in the long term interest of the company to have cash for both stability and expansion.
I throw that out there just to clarify the point that a shareholding company is to be treated as a common good for long term wealth, as opposed to the ever-present ponzi schemes that pass themselves off as corps.
Can't mod a thread I'm in, so I'll just say thank you.
You can't just run a publicly-traded company into a ditch and say, "Well, we were the majority shareholder, so tough shit."
There is a reason some entities acquire companies and then take them private. If the government felt the need to buy the remaining 20% out and then take AIG private . . . that's different.
If the government went forward with a plan like this, I guarantee you it wouldn't take ten minutes after the announcement before someone was trying to get an injunction stopping it.
Let's find out, in court, whether the shareholders or the government is sacred. This will be fun when the shareholders sue the government.
Being 80% owned does not integrate a corporation into the entity that owns it. Trust me, Verizon has been using the exact theory for decades to lock Verizon Wireless workers out of the main Verizon company's collective bargaining agreement. Also, ask the Rigases (who owned Adelphia) if full ownership entitles you to complete run of the company -- it can be a jailable offense if you go about owning the company you own to aggressively.
A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues. It's very likely that if the government, as 80% owner, tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20% could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company.
China's economy is based on the fact that even the smallest American business can call some company with a plant in Guangzhou and have a freighter full of useless crap only Americans would buy shipped for practically no cost. The weak yuan policy is, in essence, a means of exporting unemployment to other countries by ensuring that China is the preferred manufacturer of cheap stuff. A strong Yuan means higher unemployment -- something the Chinese government is so deathly afraid of that they're willing to turn a blind eye to their giant stake in America's growing fiduciary irresponsibility. The last thing the Chinese government wants is a rise in unemployment, so the last thing they want is a string yuan.
Large-scale execution in China frequently follow years of ignoring a problem. Look at the number of contractors who were executed after the Sichuan disaster last year. The Communist Party in China tends to think a massive over-reaction is the right response after years of neglect.
Sadly, I'm not sure I'm joking.
Sorry, I was having trouble reading because of the loud commercials.
Or maybe the Castro brothers were just pissed at AT&T's poor 3G coverage outside of Havana.