I come to know about your site from my friend and when i came here i come to know that a lot of information waiting for me…..
Nike Air Royal Mid VT on www. nicetick.com/nike-air-royal-mid-vt-blue-molded-leather-club-purple.html
It seems you have no tags attached to pages. To attach a tag simply click on the tags button at the bottom of any page.
|Category name||Threads||Posts||Last post|
This category groups discussions related to particular pages within this site.
11 Apr 2011 07:45Jump!
this is for the user adding content and activity to this site. please ask for and let other now what you would like to have here and if you have any question about how to edit your page etc, please let us help you, thanks.
Deleted forum discussions should go here.
Latest pages in this site:
Included page "main:contact" does not exist (create it now)
I come to know about your site from my friend and when i came here i come to know that a lot of information waiting for me…..
I found - thanks for this big gift.
as a female german,
enjoy very much
this beautyful thinking
Thank you for doing so.
To find an enjoyful solution
to come out
female- and male-energy
The conscionousness of it
will bring us
in the direction
open up for
making peace with ourselfs
bring it into the world
as a NEWBORN
to a peaceful
ADULD and ELDER,
to continue in
the BEAUTY OF LIVE,
in a WORLD WITHOUT WAR.
WITH OUR CHILDREN,
LET US CREATE
whom ever you are,
what ever you are
where ever you are.
C O M C O M - THE TIME IS N O W !
AHO - this is my saying. I hear it with my heard.
Who are obama's brother/sisters over which he is the kipper,? The bankers? Well if they are such wizard who could make 12 times more for each dollar, why shouldn't they be GovComComized now?
please let obama know about comcom!
It seems that he is now surrounded by such officers who call transparency the act of telling you what they want to tell or sell but without the act of letting you know by letting you ask your questions.
see more here: http://iswith.wikidot.com/govcomcom
thanks for recognizing relevancy of the subject.
Well - for answering this question, I have to give you a little backround regarding the structure of the german language. There exist three different articles, one for each male, female and neutral, in both cases, determined as well as undetermined ('the' and 'a'). That is how each mentioning of a person is identified as either male or female. This distinction is continued throughout all the grammar, for pronouns, adjectives etc.
In addition, the female form of any specification of a person (such as e.g. shareholder) is expressed by the suffix 'in', so that a female shareholder would be a shareholderin, which for plural then reaches the form of shareholderinnen.
Now the solutions in use keep grammatical correctness and usually function by ecplicit mentioning of both, the male and the female form, applied in one of several ways, such as e.g.: "shareholder and shareholderin" or "shareholder/in" or "shareholderIn" etc. Of course then, according to the grammar, this duplification has to be continued throughout all the sentence.
The solution, which the translator applied, acts differently. Intentionally it breaks the rules of grammar insofar, that consequently it uses the (male) basic form of the specification (e.g. shareholder), but combined with consequently using the female article and the grammatical female form of the sentence. That is, we talk about a she and her shares, but we do that using the usual and common and simple (and male) form of the person's specification (shareholder).
The advantage is to avoid mutations, such as e.g. Each(m/f) shareholder/in holds his/her shares until his/her membership extends and he/she decides to become a(m/f) member/in., where the concentration is constantly trapped in the slashes. Also, but this is my very subjective feeling, the suffix in always lets me feel like some kind of handicapped person, i am not only an electrician, i am an insisted electricianin, i must get this tail to anything, just to exist. So I found, that happily I can be called an electrician, as long as I am referred to as a she - which is exactly, what I am doing in my way of translation.
The slight irritation, I feel, can be easily overcome, where soon you get used to this form. And how do you (german speaker) feel it?
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Die 6 Punkte, die eine Common Company definieren (wobei t*d=v*c)
i know it is not working well, but i would like to know where it make its mistakes, here are 2 most popular automatic translation of this page:
by babelfish-> go
and put this url http://iswith.wikidot.com/common-company-in-6-points-ger
and then select German to English
please help the non-German here :)
hi, well it is getting warmer here, i already like it :)
could you please, let to non-German speaker, as me, to understand your solution for German speakers and to make it with reference to the other-existing such solutions in German.
ps, i do think it is very important issue
as those of you, who know german, french, italian, espanol, hebrew, arabic etc etc etc may be aware to, the usual form to express, that male and female persons are talked about, is to just use the male form. I don't like it. Me, as a german speaker, am constantly trying to be creative in always new approaches regarding that effect. It is always a 'dance on the wire' between the readability and the flow of the writing at one hand, and the -in my opinion- necessary explicit mentioning of females in some way at the other hand.
In german, there are some -more or less sophisticate- approaches in use by people trying to be pc, but all of which seem in one or the other way poor, miserable, stiff and/or not fun.
Others claim, well, of course we mean also females, what is the fuss about…
Sure. Just, if you are (incidently) a male person, and you symphatize with this claim, just for fun try a little exercise: Replace the male form with the female form in any arbitrary text, read it, and find out if 'of course' you feel meant, too. I am curious about the result, you're welcome to share it at this place…
And you are welcome to share your opinion as well as any other thoughts, ideas, suggestions, critics etc about the subject, considering the german or any other concerned language (english doesn't seem to be so much affected, is that right?)
Looking forward to your feedback and to a developing discussion, which, in the best case, hopefully may even lead to a better solution…
~ Walk in BeautY ~
yes, sorry for the one-more-click effort but this for to save the Googel's PageRank for the content of the site to be exposed better :)
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » The 6 points defining what a Common Company is (where t*d=v*c or i*d=n*c)
e.g. why shareholder can not be both Common shareholder and Private shareholder (Point 3), why d must be static (Point 2)?
Because these 6 points are for achieving an outstanding standard by which full transparency can be easily get by knowing the d alone, hence the distinction between the 2 portion must be fully clear. This standard must be simple (one factor - the d), if the purpose is decentralization of the market, which is the case for the concept of the ComCom.
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » ComCom - The Condition, one Example and some notes
When constantly dedicating (1/d-d)*v of all common shareholders
to be held by another common company of which d=1,
for baying private shares at their minimal price reflected from said v,
then the common shareholders can protect the value of v, when baying them by the latter company at the minimal price, if it is to be agreed between the shareholder.
<\ ok so let's say Alice is a client and Bob is a shareholder
/> ok, but not, lets say Alice is private shareholder and Bob is client being common shareholder
/> you need to define what kind of shareholder, more then if the one is client or shareholder
<\ so Bob pays 10 once plus 24 per month?
so, we need also to define d, lets say d=0.8, that is to say from the total and divednt
bob with the other such common would get only 80%
and Alice with other such private would get 20%
now we can calculate the "membership"
lets say each such as bob pay 24 in cycle
/> also lets say that we have 100 common
and that the company pay for salary etc some expenses , lets say 1000.
/> so we have from membership 2400, minus 1000, left over 1400 to share in dividend, if we do not want to invest that for the future
<\ who's doing the work?
/> those who get payed and/or the members, as in the web 2.0 strategies
<\ ok let's get the whole picture
let's say we make databases for companies
<\ we have 100 coders
we have 1000 customers
you can do it in 2 ways:
the question is who are we, are we private shareholders? and do we need such, for investment
<\ ok start over
/> so lets say we need some investment we would put d=0.8, for real investor to be private shareholders, and we the coders would be 100 common share holders, we would pay our holding by coding
<\ let's say we make a web browser with smellovision
/> what is smellovision?
<\ you can smell people over the internet
so lets define numbers here
say we want 1m investment, we are 100 coder having already the concept
we expect market of ?
… ok lets say market of 100m
the privet investors would get , from the market of 100m only 20m whereas each of the common share holder would get 800,000
but that is if we did not expanses,
/> now let say the market was here defined per year
<\ what happens with the 10 and 24?
if I don't code I pay 24 a month
but if I code I don't pay anything?
it, how to use the d or the distinction can be played in different ways
in the 1st e.g. we talked about some thing like web 2.0 thing and in the 2nd about hard core developers
you can play it more wide if you would allow 3rd party services as part of the structure
<\ but where is the 10 and the 24?
/> in the 2nd e.g. the 10 is the activity of the common shareholder being the coders, and the 24 is payed by the companies to which we sell the smelling machine
<\ ok so if I code I don't pay and if I don't code I pay?
If I'm the common shareholder?
/> that is in the 2nd, the client is fully distinguished from the company whereas in 1st the client is part of building the company
if the company get income from non common share holder, the company is free from them, those are the clients of the smelling machine
<\ Ok example:
100 people have shares, 50 code, 50 pay 10
/> define common and privet please
also the d
<\ all are common
how does the share price go up or down?
/> yes it can be, but i do not know if this what you mean
it means that those who pay 10 and those who code are EQUAL
/> now it may hold with the payment of membership
<\ membership = cost of service?
/> but if that is so, why not having the coder in the private
membership cost = cost of service+ benfite
I think I get it
/> of the shareholders , like dividend and holding Intellectual Properties
<\ Alice is 100 coders, Bob is 10m buyers, Charlie is 1m investor
<\ something is odd about it
/> 1st question do we want the buyers to be common shareholders
<\ let's start with no
buyer is just customer
make it simple then more complex
/> so this is easy have the investor in private and the coder in common, and you are done
<\ how much code = 1 share?
Alice is common and Charlie is private
1000 lines of code, 2 months of code?
20 hours per month of maintenance of code?
/> so 0.008 get each coder and0.2 get Charlie
<\ if coder stops coding?
/> from the income, which did not say, did we define the income?
this is so much important in relation to open source
<\ I know
but it has to be reasonable or no one invest as private
/> he gets, he might get less, because other coder gut in where he gut out of coding, but not from common shareholding, that is to say we would have more common share holders
<\ How about this:
/> it is so reasonable, since no gut my invention, because i am not going to code all my life
<\ I have an idea
if coder stops coding, he becomes private shareholder
from his coding but no longer has control of code
/> let me say this:
1. no one can be both common and private shareholder
<\ right has to exchange
/> 2. the values might feet to what you suggest but not always
<\ charter of company would state that
there is a way to do this very simple
/> can exchange but not be both, btw you can have common company in one portion and be persnal privte shareholder in the other
so no problem, it depended on the value
it might hold, but the problem is of being scalable
e.g. we begin in d=0.8 and 1M private and 100 coders
now the company gut huge
its total is 1b
no , sorry YOU ARE RIGHT
because the common would be exchanging for the right proportion
<\ someone who pays 10 gets 800,000, someone who pays 1million gets 200,000 something wrong there
/> to summarize, such regulation, we need to granty that the private holder would agree because that one going to loose
it not hold, sorry again
<\ there is a way to do this but it's going to have to be carefully done
/> because the common would evacuate place for other common , but the private would not agree to pay it
<\ ok let's try a different way:
/> look take yourself in the private
as private you are going to pay from your share for nothing to the common one
this cause fraction!!!
after 6 years investor makes profit 200,000 while coder buys a hotel
/> just to add for this case, all the common would benfite from that exachnge
<\ small hotel
/> no problem , go on
here's the way to do:
the code is made of modules
<\ so we can know the value of the code
<\ so we know how to exchange
/> but why should we!?
<\ never mind my mistake
/> we could add new common constatly, if the value of the code is such which would alow to build on it
then we say we have 100 coder to BEGIN with , the would make such amount of code, which genrate income
that income sould continue ONLY if more coder would com in
so the income would increse , it would be added
/> now to this flow we add more doprs, more coders
<\ how about this: no common or private
/> more income distinuted between more coders
all are common
<\ code = .8 and money = .2
make it simple that way
/> code is common money is private, but what is the moeny income or out come?
<\ investor gets 20million coder get 800,000
/> so that is what we talked before?
<\ only coder is common there is no money common
because 800,000/10 = 80,000x profit, 20m/1m = 20x profit
investor makes more but spends less
er but common spends less
/> i did not gut the different, please try to use the (my) definition we already established
Hi, only this page shows its comments but this page as any other page has its thread in the forum of this site and have its bottom, see the discuss(number of comments) and click it for to go to the thread for to find the relevant page see this
Any page you can also rate and in any case: Let the others learn and earn from your learning, please watch the threads ask, replay, post etc.
You can also create pages in this site and after contacting they might be included in this font page.
All about ComCom and/or about how to realize it (how to ComCom it)
is in our need, we must let it out!
last thing add your "new comment" here and replay me
When you produce content, upon which you could claim your Intellectual Properties Rights, you can become a common shareholder in cooperation with others like you, or become a private shareholder inviting -others- to cooperate with you. In each way, you could do so, in the same type of Companies - the Common Companies type.
Yes, Ok, Hold on, here is what I know I have:
- My contribution in form of idea , content, a code, research, a piece of art etc….
- A free legal shell in form of Creative Common, from copy-left to copy-right, although without Patents, Trademarks or Trade secrets, or in return for $1 only having exclusive rights lasting for 14 or 28 years.
- A free technical shell of facilities to cooperate with others, but under my control due to the permissions, which I am able to set over my Intellectual Properties, within some networking provided as service for development of Organic Groups, such as provided by OG Drupal.
But now, please do not send me to obey and beg investors, consider me as one producing valuable "things", but not (yet) for the end-users, and tell me where is my benefit with any marketing of my contribution, so then I, with others like me, could invite such investors for enabling the development we believe we need?
Instead of going first to such investors, you with other like you could first cooperate in the level of the free service for development of Organic Groups in the designing of your common company, such that
the common company would act as an agent promoting and/or selling your contributions as mature/immature products and/or services to the clients of the agent being also its common shareholders, while you, the contributors, are private shareholders in the company.
Now you could make the agent charging commission on the deals (or other fees on specific service or products delivered) between the contributors and clients,
- where the fees are distributed between the shareholders (including the clients) after cleaning the expenses of the company
- where the deals may be between individuals (contributors/clients) and/or between the agent as a whole and the clients and/or contributors,
- and where somewhere along the way you could offer part of the private portion to investors, for increasing the value of your shares etc.(Generally: The later you get in, the more expensive the shares.)
Yet another way is by having investors as private shareholders and contributors as common shareholders in one company (A) , of which clients are common shareholders in another common company (B), of which one of the private shareholders is the first company (A); in this case c in company (A) may be limited and the company also would have a staff.
Finally: The development of Common Companies, when it is dynamically integrated in the networking of Organic Groups, enables reaching a very complex and well adjusted structure of organization of which components are Common Companies bound together by held shares, each of the other, such that the match of contributors, which is to be measured equally (as common shareholders) in each component (being a common company), is or can be diversified in the organization as a whole. In such organizations, due to the decentralization of the Common Companies, the distinction between each of the three: the shareholders, the employs and the clients, can be diversified and be maintained fully, partly or completely avoided.
You can change the world, if you ask yourself what you want and what the other want, learn the other, so that you could find your way to welcome the other to your way to change the world. This do not mean to compromise; but to Imagine-Think-Learn-and-Do intensively.
~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing adblockplus.