II do have one around my neck
Latin and Greek have wider vocabularies than any conlang. Also, Lojban in practice is highly open to interpretation; there are other formal mathematical languages used to define strict interpretations by using logical operations to build relations.
So of course you can get out more than you put in.
No, you cannot get out more than WHAT EVERY FUCKING PERSON PUT IN.
You put in $10. Sam puts in $10. You get out $20, Sam gets $0. Market becomes illiquid because there are $0, all stocks become worthless.
It's cute you think share price controls executive salary, instead of, you know, contracts. I mean come on, we have companies rewriting contracts to get rid of CEOs by paying them a pile of money. There's a contract for X salary, Y bonuses, Z stock options, plus a golden parachute in case of termination.
What worries me about her is that she was in charge of Clinton's single-payer plan, and screwed it up royally. So far I don't like any of the candidates from either major party.
Either way I'll probably vote either Libertarian or Green. I cannot support a candidate who wants me in prison. The only way she'll get my vote is if the Republicans screw up in their Presidential nominations like they did with Illinois' Governor's race. They had one excellent candidate, two acceptable and a tea party billionaire who hates unions and middle class people. They chose the only candidate who could get me to vote for Quinn.
Morons. They'll probably nominate another tea party stinker who only cares about the 1%. If they do I'll have to vote for Clinton.
Why do so many right wing radicals (and supporting the 2nd amendment is in no way radical) insist on using, as they would put it, grocers apostrophe's? (Yes that was deliberate). There seems to be a correlation between far left and far right radicals and a lack of education.
When I woke up, all my muscles were on fire. We would have had to turn the ship around today, and in fact that's what was scheduled, except for the meteors and the drama that followed.
Destiny was sleeping peacefully. I got up, thankful that we weren't at Earth gravity but wishing we had turned around for deceleration then, because they have it plotted so that you start the journey close to the planet you're leavi
- On the Start Screen, click Desktop.
- Open Internet Explorer.
- Go to ClassicShell.net.
- Download and install the Classic Shell application.
- Congratulations! You have upgraded to Windows 7.1. Now watch our Windows 7 video.
Yes, that's how important I think Classic Shell is: it goes on even before Firefox.
Yes but that's my point. The entire stock market is overvalued. People believe that this overvaluation means that money is created in the stock market--that the stocks are worth something, and that if you buy a stock and it goes up in price and you sell it then the stock market just created the $200 you made. In reality, you got that $200 by making other people $200 poorer.
The only time money actually moves into the market is when people put money there, through dividends or buying into the market or whatever. The amount of money in the market is untrackable, as it's basically however much people are willing to spend--it's theoretically the total BUY orders on the books everywhere, but there's more money in the market waiting for something to reach a price where it makes sense to place a BUY order. Ye cannae measure it all.
Point is that the whole market is worth less than the valuation of the market. It's overvalued. Of course stock prices are overvalued or undervalued relative to where you think they're going on a timescale; but I'm talking about the immediate timescale--there is not actually more money in the market, just the prices in the market increase. People buy some fraction of the total market cap, and the spot price goes up; what about the rest of the market cap that wasn't traded? The difference between volume and total shares, you know, all those shares for which there is no demand at this price point? People value the market by multiplying the stock spot price by all issued shares--and that's obviously wrong. You can only get out exactly what was put in.
This is something I'd actually like to see. What happens if you buy up 50.1% of the common stock of a company, and it then goes bankrupt?
The moment the company files bankruptcy, common stock is cancelled. So the company you own is ejected from your ownership with no pay-out. Think about that.
It's suddenly an interesting question. Though, now you're just arguing semantics and fantasies; the reality is your "ownership" of a portion of a company means precisely dick, you have no rights to any of their money unless they say so (it's called "embezzlement"...), etc. Money being spent is not "your money"; you own stock, you don't have more than the valuation of stock, and the company doesn't owe you anything for that.
There should be proper operational management and risk management at every level. If you're elevating everything to the same people in full, uh. Yeah, that's broken.
Patching is an operations issue. If the patch process ever changes--if you find a patch that breaks your stuff and you need to take an unprecidented action--that's some kind of project. Decisions are made. Usually it's a very minor project that ends in a decision to exercise a known process (upgrade, contact vendor for fix, etc.), and doesn't require spinning up a whole waterfall methodology and going through all these motions of scheduling and such. Part of project management is knowing when to be more or less formal.
Any remotely well organised IT department will have processes for handling both emergency deployments and retrospective approval. I'm not going to be cheerleader for the concept of CAB but if you're going to make a case against it then at least make a reasonable one because hiding behind obvious nonsense like this will just make you look stupid and change averse to your employer.
At least someone gets it.
OP should probably pick up a book on project management and familiarize himself with change control management concepts, and the need thereof. In large IT shops, change controlling patches is important: I've been in shops where critical patches were held back because the 2 week testing round showed that they caused critical services to fail, which was unacceptable. We worked out workarounds, fixed our own software, or got the vendor on the phone as necessary and suspended those patches for those systems in particular until we could get things straight; but if we'd just fired patches off as they came, we would have been in a WORLD of hurt!
My current employer has no change control management for anything, and every time something breaks there's just arguments and shouting. I have to weed through a whole lot of shit, de-tangle lossy memories, and eventually form a picture of when this was first noticed, how frequently it occurs, what changed around that time, what else could be broke in the same way but is not, etc. Kepner-Tregoe problem analysis. If we had a CCM, I could just pull up the changes at that time and avoid a whole lot of guesses and conjecture, solve problems quicker, and have fewer instances of problems never getting solved because everyone would rather sit around and cry like babies while throwing wooden blocks at each others' heads.
And they wonder why I'm suddenly studying for project management...