Um, almost $800 per share. Anyone who thinks it hasn't peaked can just look at Apple, who is now a litle more than half that - when they were equal just a matter of months ago.
What bozo modded that insightful?
Comparing stock prices directly is completely meaningless. (I was going to try to joke that it's like comparing Apples and Googles, but I think some wouldn't get it.)
Compare P/E, total market capitalization, or something else relevant. The share price is completely irrelevant, because a company can split or reverse split at any time.
(I have made money by buying before a split and selling afterwards, to profit off of the same people who think "the share price is now half what it used to be, it must be cheap", which often causes a brief *illogical* pop in the share price.)
It is certainly "better" in that I'm not drinking several hundred calories (in multiple cans' worth) of empty calories a day.
Yes, I know there are some studies that claim that diet sodas can make you eat more. At least for me, it was an easy way to cut out lots of empty calories (even though I eat other junk food).
since I know there is no way to demonstrate the existence of a god, I am, by definition, without a god -- an atheist
Umm, no. By that definition, you are an agnostic.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
I am an atheist because I *believe* there is no god, I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.
Apparently not this variety, but you can "still guzzle down a couple of cans of soda a day without worrying about my weight".. Just drink diet soda. There's a ton of different kinds nowadays.
Though, at least 80% of those didn't get more than one refill.
At first I thought you were saying they didn't get *any* refills. (Bad reading on my part.) Though it seems reasonable that most people don't get two refills.. Perhaps one to drink while they're eating and one fillup on the way out.
Though I tend not to get a drink unless I have a "free combo" coupon or somesuch. For sit down restaurants, whether they have free refills or not is a determining factor whether I just get water or get a drink.
I agree with your cynicism, however at least *some* fruit juices really aren't much better than sugared soda. (I want to say all, but have no citations.) For example, apple juice, which seems to be fed to kids a lot, is basically just sugar water with very little nutrients.
(Now, *eating* fruit, sure that's a good thing.)
BTW, I eat total junk food, I'm just trying to pass on that some of the supposedly healthier things really aren't.
I knew other countries had caffeine free Mt. Dew. I would drink a lot more Diet Mt. Dew if there were a caffeine free version in the U.S. I drink some caffeinated soda, but mostly caffeine free, especially if I drink it at night.. So at night especially I avoid Diet Mt. Dew.
I hope they make a diet version (or "light", since the probably-miniscule amount of fruit juice they put in would still have sugar in it naturally). If so, I'll at least try it. Diet Mt. Dew was the first good tasting diet soda.
2. The federal government may not at any time invest tax payers money into a for profit company. 3. The federal government may invest in non-profit research organizations.
Why should the government pay to create things (technology, medicine, etc.) but not be able to get a return on its investment?
Think of all of the companies that have made tons of money off of DARPA's creation of technologies that lead to the Internet?
Why wouldn't something like the Stanford University model (AFAIK, have lots of land, rent out land to the companies/stores, and when they invest in companies, they make a return on their investment)?
But the price of alternative energy is dropping quickly now. It's still too high. A $1200 investment will net you $36 per year of electricity.
Where do you get your figures? I've heard various others mention (yes, that's also uncited) 7-10 years payback time for solar, and even if it were 20 years, that would be reasonable.
Back to the video, the REAL point that was being made was that billions of YOUR tax dollars have been flushed down failed companies who have far more talent in kicking back their government investments rather than actually producing energy. This would be an entirely different matter had we seen some kind of impact on our electrical grid for all the money that's been poured into it. Ya know... results!
I want to get rid of ALL subsidies, including "good" ones. (Yes, I think solar counts as a good one.)
What about the tons of previous administrations (Democratic & Republican) who have wasted billions of our tax dollars subsidizing OIL and COAL and TOBACCO and HFCS?
(BTW, I am not "anti-HFCS". Sugar is sugar, but my tax money shouldn't be paying a company to make one of them.)
Before WWI there was NO property taxes, income taxes
In your universe, WWI happened before 1861?
From wikipedia:
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the US federal government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800) ($20,693 in 2013 dollars).
$0 (iPhone 4), $99 (iPhone 4S) and $199 (iPhone 5) are "very expensive"?
Yes, that assumes contracts, like most phones (unfortunately). You can also pay full price for a contract free phone, just like you would with any other phone.
Fundamentally this is a problem with investing in solar panels... I could take on all the complication and effort and risk to fall off the grid for 20 years, or I could pay the same amount for stock and never pay a bill again without having to lift a physical finger and relatively low risk... Hmm.
You don't need to get off the grid if you get solar panels. Getting solar panels to make your overall usage over a year be zero is "good enough".. and you then have the reliability of the grid in case you need it/are not generating enough yourself.
Plus, you would generate the most expensive electricity -- on hot sunny days in the summer when others are using A/C.
I'm not actually even really disagreeing with you, I like(d) having the CDs as "backup".. I'm just pointing out that lots of people seem to be fine with buying lower quality versions, and when they get cheap enough (e.g. the Amazon specials), I'll buy the digital versions instead of a CD.
Do you know how desperately my bank wants me to abandon the use of paper? It's touted as "green" and "environmentally friendly", and sure, I am all for that when it comes to coffee cups, but not when I could possibly be dragged into court, and be ruined financially by a lack of availability to hard copies of essential documents and records that might very-well exonerate me.
So you think that that piece of paper, which could be easily faked on a computer + printer, is going to "save" you, whereas electronic records won't? That seems to be more "magical thinking".
AFAIK (and correct me with specifics if I'm wrong), in situations like this, the laws have been amended to make the electronic copies JUST as legally binding as the paper copy you (previously) got. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar to the bank being able to microfilm your checks then destroy the originals, and the microfilm copies being legally equivalent⦠or now, being able to deposit checks entirely on your phone and being able to destroy the check sometime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
We may not be there yet for individuals, but there is at least one taxi company doing this, swapping out batteries.
What bozo modded that insightful?
Comparing stock prices directly is completely meaningless. (I was going to try to joke that it's like comparing Apples and Googles, but I think some wouldn't get it.)
Compare P/E, total market capitalization, or something else relevant. The share price is completely irrelevant, because a company can split or reverse split at any time.
(I have made money by buying before a split and selling afterwards, to profit off of the same people who think "the share price is now half what it used to be, it must be cheap", which often causes a brief *illogical* pop in the share price.)
That's because people that high up in companies sell automatically at predetermined times, so they can't be accused of insider trading.
It is certainly "better" in that I'm not drinking several hundred calories (in multiple cans' worth) of empty calories a day.
Yes, I know there are some studies that claim that diet sodas can make you eat more. At least for me, it was an easy way to cut out lots of empty calories (even though I eat other junk food).
Yeah, I just meant calorie wise. I don't care about artificial sweeteners. They're what make diet mt dew taste good.
The AC post that responded to me is score 0.. So I'm basically reposting it.
Unfortunately, not available within 50 miles of me.
Umm, no. By that definition, you are an agnostic.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
I am an atheist because I *believe* there is no god, I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.
Apparently not this variety, but you can "still guzzle down a couple of cans of soda a day without worrying about my weight".. Just drink diet soda. There's a ton of different kinds nowadays.
At first I thought you were saying they didn't get *any* refills. (Bad reading on my part.) Though it seems reasonable that most people don't get two refills.. Perhaps one to drink while they're eating and one fillup on the way out.
Though I tend not to get a drink unless I have a "free combo" coupon or somesuch. For sit down restaurants, whether they have free refills or not is a determining factor whether I just get water or get a drink.
What if we hate cooking?
(out to get a footlong Subway in a while..)
I agree with your cynicism, however at least *some* fruit juices really aren't much better than sugared soda. (I want to say all, but have no citations.) For example, apple juice, which seems to be fed to kids a lot, is basically just sugar water with very little nutrients.
(Now, *eating* fruit, sure that's a good thing.)
BTW, I eat total junk food, I'm just trying to pass on that some of the supposedly healthier things really aren't.
I knew other countries had caffeine free Mt. Dew. I would drink a lot more Diet Mt. Dew if there were a caffeine free version in the U.S. I drink some caffeinated soda, but mostly caffeine free, especially if I drink it at night.. So at night especially I avoid Diet Mt. Dew.
I hope they make a diet version (or "light", since the probably-miniscule amount of fruit juice they put in would still have sugar in it naturally). If so, I'll at least try it. Diet Mt. Dew was the first good tasting diet soda.
Why should the government pay to create things (technology, medicine, etc.) but not be able to get a return on its investment?
Think of all of the companies that have made tons of money off of DARPA's creation of technologies that lead to the Internet?
Why wouldn't something like the Stanford University model (AFAIK, have lots of land, rent out land to the companies/stores, and when they invest in companies, they make a return on their investment)?
Where do you get your figures? I've heard various others mention (yes, that's also uncited) 7-10 years payback time for solar, and even if it were 20 years, that would be reasonable.
The first result I got for searching for solar power was ebay of all places, probably not the best place to buy something like this.. and the highest price in other results was $1.29/watt.
http://compare.ebay.com/like/120539611181?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar
Obviously there are other costs (like the inverter) too.
I want to get rid of ALL subsidies, including "good" ones. (Yes, I think solar counts as a good one.)
What about the tons of previous administrations (Democratic & Republican) who have wasted billions of our tax dollars subsidizing OIL and COAL and TOBACCO and HFCS?
(BTW, I am not "anti-HFCS". Sugar is sugar, but my tax money shouldn't be paying a company to make one of them.)
In your universe, WWI happened before 1861?
From wikipedia:
$0 (iPhone 4), $99 (iPhone 4S) and $199 (iPhone 5) are "very expensive"?
Yes, that assumes contracts, like most phones (unfortunately). You can also pay full price for a contract free phone, just like you would with any other phone.
You don't need to get off the grid if you get solar panels. Getting solar panels to make your overall usage over a year be zero is "good enough".. and you then have the reliability of the grid in case you need it/are not generating enough yourself.
Plus, you would generate the most expensive electricity -- on hot sunny days in the summer when others are using A/C.
[citation needed]
This has been a *rumor* for a very long time, but has anyone ever *seriously* proposed it? I don't think so.
MP3 is a more compressed format than CD.
I'm not actually even really disagreeing with you, I like(d) having the CDs as "backup".. I'm just pointing out that lots of people seem to be fine with buying lower quality versions, and when they get cheap enough (e.g. the Amazon specials), I'll buy the digital versions instead of a CD.
They really did pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
So you think that that piece of paper, which could be easily faked on a computer + printer, is going to "save" you, whereas electronic records won't? That seems to be more "magical thinking".
AFAIK (and correct me with specifics if I'm wrong), in situations like this, the laws have been amended to make the electronic copies JUST as legally binding as the paper copy you (previously) got. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar to the bank being able to microfilm your checks then destroy the originals, and the microfilm copies being legally equivalent⦠or now, being able to deposit checks entirely on your phone and being able to destroy the check sometime soon.
We need somewhere to put the trunk lines.
Unless "Interenet" is something special (joking), no.
According to wikipedia
I was on the Internet several years before that, and others years before that.