Says the study I cited, which compared historical shareholder returns for companies with stock voting arrangements like Google's to companies having one class of stock that each has one vote.
Yes, but eventually they'd have issued enough class A shares to make the class B shares less significant. Now Larry and Sergey can keep their majority votes safe forever. In the long run, to the likely detriment of Google shareholders.
Bad news for Google shareholders in the long run. Companies with multiple share classes having different voting rights tend to underperform companies with stock that is one share, one vote.
Please note: that doesn't mean Google won't do well, but that on average it's likely to do worse for shareholders than if all stock had the same voting rights.
Do you think it likely that an entire field that evolved over a period of thousands of years, has thousands of people doing the job all over the world daily, and is so common and important that there is scientific research performed on it pretty much not-stop, just missed this idea?
Yes. Perhaps not all medical people personally, but as an institution, the medical field totally did.
Of course between no school and school with loans the choice is clear (in an (post-)industrialized country, mind you).
Doesn't always seem clear to me. The whole point of the article was that you could be saddled with loan payments for a very, very long time with little to no improvement in job prospects.
Since the USPTO is financed by patent application fees it has a perverse incentive to continue promiscuously granting as many patents as possible.
I would hope that filers for patents that are rejected would still get charged a fee. If they aren't, they should be. After all, it still takes up a patent clerk's time.
You seem to be talking about some sort of very narrow non-motion definition of thermogenesis and I am not. I guess according to you, shivering because one is cold is not thermogenesis.
If you want to know more about what I'm talking about with drastic changes in calorie expenditure, do a google search on "non-exercise activity thermogenesis".
I think it could be more than that. Studies have found that some people have burned off an increase of hundreds of calories a day just through an increase in fidgeting.
Despite the fact that all of the subjects spent the same amount of time in exactly the same confined space, the results showed large differences in the number of calories they burned. Some subjects burned as few as 1,300 calories in 24 hours, while others burned as much as 3,600 calories, a difference of 2,300 calories in one 24-hour period!
Keep in mind that most of what these subjects were doing would not be counted as "exercise".
His comment says more about the content of the article than most of the other comments. An article about sugar funded by ADM is not an objective source of information, due to the very large conflict of interest.
That line alone cost the article much of its credibility in my book. A scientific article should not lump all sugars together as metabolically equivalent.
Not the full thirty pounds, but it could definitely be a contributing factor. And, if one's extremities get warmer while one's core temperature remains the same, the same amount of clothing is worn, and the ambient temperature remains the same, it's pretty much a certainty that more calories are being spent on heating the body.
Unless you started exercising, these two statements are incompatible with one another (violates the first law of thermodynamics). What's more likely is you felt "fuller" from eating healthy foods and therefore consumed less calories.
Another possibility is that the food eaten affects the metabolic rate. I've known multiple people who stopped having cold extremities when they cut back on their sugar intake.
It's quite possible they should stop being farmers and that the nation should farm out (get it?) much of its agriculture to the developing world.
A fundamental reason countries that can afford it have agricultural subsidies is that a little overproduction ensures food security. If you outsource your food production to another country, and there's a worldwide food shortage, that country can demand almost anything from you and get it, because otherwise some of your people starve.