or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by igxqrrl

The exact quote from her email was "I cannot actively recruit anyone currently at xyz. I'm really sorry, I didn't realize this when I first contacted you." My interpretation of that is that an agreement was in place restricting her from actively recruiting from my employer. Perhaps there's another way to interpret it. Honestly, I didn't think much of it at the time, but it was only a few months later that the anti-poaching issue was raised. "Suffer" is a strong word but...
 Several years ago I worked for one of the companies involved. A recruiter from another contacted me about an opportunity. After a couple email exchanges she sent me a note "I'm sorry, but I've just been informed that we are not permitted to recruit from 'xyz'". I was not a high-level employee, yet clearly the "anti-poaching" agreement did apply to me. I suspect it was blanket across all employees.
 The Tylt vu was for sale for $35 or so on BF: I picked up two; one for the nightstand and one for my desk at work. The design isn't as elegant as what you show, but they work fine. I really appreciate the ability to just plop my phone down when it's dark, and I don't want to wake my wife by fumbling for a cord and plugging it in. At work I have plenty of light, but picking up the phone when I walk around is just that much easier. Apple's elegant lightning connector helps...
This. I've worked for two of the companies ranked higher than Apple, and my wife was head-hunted by Apple. The compensation offered at Apple is lower than competing firms; Apple banks (successfully) on its cachet to attract talent.
 Wait, so it's OK if the scam artist in line at the store behind you takes a picture of your CC and uses it 10 minutes later? Seems to me the problem you're complaining about is someone taking a picture of your CC. Google wallet doesn't add any new issues to that problem.
 Are you worried that they're going to go charge something on it?
  A rational market cap is the NPV of all expected future payouts. Any other definition is irrational. A company that never intends to pay out any cash has no value. That does not mean that a company that currently does not pay out cash has no value.   To bring it back to the original point, increased earnings should not imply increased stock price. Increased earnings may reflect decreased expected future payouts. Of course Graham's statement always holds true,...
  Note that I explicitly said "future payouts", not "future results". Those are two different things.   A company that has as a policy never returning a single penny to investors has no value to those investors, even if it's raking in profits.
  These two things are unrelated. The market cap should reflect the NPV of all expected future payouts. That and nothing more.   If expected future payouts decrease, so should the stock price.   It is quite insane to believe that increased earnings should automatically result in a higher stock price. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  That's an odd assumption, since I am a programmer.   One who has coded many date bugs that went undetected, and one who has found many bugs in date routines in others' code.   So no, I don't have a negative opinion of programmers, I have a realistic view of which functionality is complex and therefore likely to harbor bugs, and the motivations that cause programmers to hit these same bugs over, and over, and over.
New Posts  All Forums: