Buchwald based his decision on the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War, and required that the United States recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim. The original owner of the coastal property filed such a claim. The U.S. government challenged his land patent, but the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed his ownership in 1859 -- 14 years before the California Constitution was first drafted.
I can't make head nor tail of this.[1]
EDIT: OK, this[2] is clearer:
The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial.
The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso's land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso's ownership in 1859.
We get diluted. Every investor gets diluted. They may have the right to buy more stock in later rounds to maintain their percentage, but they do have to buy it, at the price of that round.
Nope, YC's equity gets diluted like everyone else's. In fact, while many investors will buy more shares (at the new price) to keep their % ownership, YC does not, so their ownership % when the company exits is probably 3% or less, down from the original 6%.
Usually $11,000 + $3000 per founder. So $17,000 for two founders, $20,000 for three or more. We've also arranged for each startup to get $80k in convertible notes automatically. The goal is usually to give you enough money to build an impressive prototype or version 1, which you can then use to get further funding.
Currently it doesn't seem to be that low ( "we invest a small amount of money ($14-20k + an $80k note") from http://ycombinator.com/ , but yeah, it's not a huge amount of cash. It is very early stage startups though, remember.
Because the backlight is still on for a while. If they wanted, when they turn off the backlight, they could leave the page you were reading visible. They choose to show an "off" image, though.
I'm surprised to find not one defense of Mark like there was in the original thread a few weeks ago, when the trial started. At that time, there were a bunch of people with very specific arguments why it wasn't insider trading. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember reading and I found them interesting.
In addition to micampe's point, he actually does commit, very specifically. A quote:
"To be clear, I’m saying we should ignore the workers’ welfare beyond what is necessary to (a) provide the best ridership experience and (b) to guarantee BART workers the safety and living standard we regulate, at minimum, for all workers. No more and no less."
That is, the Bay Area public should support BART's side in this dispute, because money spent on labor (benefiting the few) is money that can't be spent on system investment (benefiting the many).
If we want to ensure that BART workers can afford to live in the area, that's an important but separate question, and it's better to address the cost of living broadly* than to treat BART employment as a highly targeted Social Security scheme for train operators and mechanics.
* E.g., substantial increases in the minimum wage, lessening restrictions on new housing, non-profit-oriented health care, and (shocker) effective public transit.
That is usually an indication of someone knowing what they are talking about: they know there is no black and white easy answer to most issues (not always true though: they may also be a politician).
The biggest impact that many people see is that over time, a minimum income gives people a disincentive to work. So if Switzerland starts giving every citizen $2800 a month, will tons of people stop working because they realize they can live off of 33k/year? In Alaska, it is probably rather difficult to live off of $1400/year but some people do it by living off the land and hard work at home. If the Alaska fund did not exist, would some of those people go back to work? That is the question economists would look for.
But would it help anyone if those people go back to work? I'm pretty sure that in the future we need to refrain from the notion that everybody can find work. With increasing automation there just won't be enough jobs to fill.
Why speak on the future tense? This is occuring now (and has been occuring for more than 30 years now), with actual unemployment levels consistently above 10% and in some coutries even much more.
I'm unfamiliar with Alaska's situation, but some cities in Manitoba, Canada tried what they called "mincome" for a while as an experiment by the federal government.
The only people they found that were less represented in the work force were teenagers and new mothers (in my opinion, people that could do without being in the workforce for a while...). Hospital visits decreased (with socialized healthcare, this is a good thing financially). Crime went down. Kids did better at school... Really, the effect was a pretty clear net positive.
(It's important to note, however, that as you earned your own income the money was subtracted from your 'mincome' at half that rate. There was never a point where "working more" or "earning more" would equate to making the same or less money. Something missing in many current social programs.)
The program ended because of a shift from a more socialist party to a more conservative one, not because of any intrinsic issue.
> In Alaska, it is probably rather difficult to live off of $1400/year but some people do it by living off the land and hard work at home. If the Alaska fund did not exist, would some of those people go back to work?
They are working, as you note -- just working in a manner that they clearly prefer to wage labor.
There was a (Swiss) commenter on a previous HN article (last week, I believe) about the basic income idea and he/she said that $6000 is a median income there.
Sorry but you're talking out of your ass. People who are living off the land in Alaska are doing it because that's what they do, when they get their PFD check they spend it on extra things. Regardlesss, nobody's sole source of income is the PFD except for some of the homeless in Anchorage—but they'd be homeless with or without the PFD check.
Buchwald based his decision on the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War, and required that the United States recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim. The original owner of the coastal property filed such a claim. The U.S. government challenged his land patent, but the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed his ownership in 1859 -- 14 years before the California Constitution was first drafted.
I can't make head nor tail of this.[1]
EDIT: OK, this[2] is clearer:
The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial.
The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso's land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso's ownership in 1859.
[1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/Vinod-Khosla-Can-Keep-Public-Off-B...
[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-k...