In short, get a MBA degree.
That's really not an argument. Billions of flies think crap is good. What was your breakfast this morning?
This is university, they are paying to learn.
Some folks are actually paying their own way... And I think you'll find that they're generally the ones who actually want to learn... But a lot of them aren't paying their own way.
Some of them have parents paying their way. Some of them got a grant or scholarship of some sort. Some of them just got a pile of loans and haven't yet realized they'll have to pay it off eventually.
I wonder what they are looking at getting out it?
If I'm being generous, I'll say that they've been told that they need a college degree to get any kind of job. They probably don't really know why they're there... It's just the next step after high school.
If I'm being a bit more realistic, I'll say that a lot of folks have this idea that college is a four-year long party. They're just there to have fun and couldn't care much less about the academics.
Well, what you're saying is not technically true either.
Chris DiBona and other people have stated that it's a fork. So it is a fork. Much like Chromium isn't called Chrome because the brand stands for a "different" product, this kernel shouldn't really be called Linux because it's a fork and there's no intention to make it the official Linux again. Sure, it contains a large part of the Linux kernel and it's free, I didn't say a word about that. But much like Chromium is not Chrome, Iceweasel is not Firefox, this is not Linux (the kernel).
If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders. Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes.
The real issue is that the stockholders are getting exactly what the want. Short term performance, and who cares about the long term. Since most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and so on and what they care about is how they did on last quarter's performance numbers.
That the company will go broke in 5 years is irrelevant, they just want to perform better than their competitors this quarter. And since they make up the bulk of the owners that's how it is supposed to work.
If the owners cared about long term performance they would structure compensation schemes to reflect that - mind you that is easier said than done. Short term stock price incentives, however, are just about the worst way possible to do that.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary, and....
As an example, say you are presented with an ad image from the http://spamareus.com/ads/ad1234.jpg URL. When you invoke the Adblock dialog, the preselected regular expression will be http://spamareus.com/ads/* , meaning that everything from the ads folder will be blocked, which is usually what you want.
That's exactly NOT what I want.
I want to block ads based on the *content's* URL, not the URL the ad is being served from. I don't know why this is so hard to explain... you do realize that ads are served from a different domain than the content domain?
DoubleClick and Atlas are used both by reasonable sites, and abusive sites. Thus, I want to block content from doubleclick.net when the page being viewed is abusivesite.com, but I *don't* want to block content from doubleclick.net when the page is from imokwiththissite.com. Get it?
AdBlock is technically capable of this-- it's whitelists work this way already. I just need the inverse functionality. Your suggestion doesn't help at all.
Reminds me of the best way to make a theory in linguistics bullet proof: making it Turing complete. That creates obstacles in proving with pencil and paper that it can't work. Your proposal is deficient in vitamin T.
First, the swayzun can take the form of this: if it comes up A we pay you $200, if it comes up !A, you pay us $100. It's going to cost you $100 for sure if neither of your balls is tattooed with the letter A. I'm sure no one accosted at a casino would possibly take up this wager.
Second, the swayzun can take a more insidious form: better not vote for them darkies. As long as there are at least two melatonin deficient candidates on the ballet, you can cover your ass without ruffling the swayder's white bed sheet.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford