Apple created their own private hedge fund instead. It probably holds a bunch of corporate paper, yes, but that's unlikely to be all they hold.
If you believe Apple's SEC filing though, they earned $1,088,000,000 in interest and dividends on their $121,251,000,000 in "cash" or 0.9%. If you instead take the prior years "cash" then you have $81,570,000,000 in "cash" for 1.3%. Since the cash was generated throughout the year and not all at the start or the end the actual rate is somewhere between those.
So why does Apple not use one of these mythical,bank accounts (aside from that they lose their cash if the bank goes bust, which you don't seem to consider an issue)?
That isn't "collecting interest while that money's in the bank" which is clearly referring to interest earned on money they have deposited with a bank.
As I said the city asked the judge to dismiss it, which is an indicator the city thinks they won't win - they didn't ask to dismiss all the other speeding fine cases after all. And the police said is was an error. Both of which are refenced from links in the article.
Of course some of those 860 murders might be robbers killing fellow robbers or police killing robbers or whatever. Then again some of those 31,672 deaths are not going to be of the household member of a gun owner.
Even if "orders of magnitude" is true, then the conclusion doesn't follow since guns are not kept just to kill intruders. They are also kept to stop an intruder without killing them (scaring them away, etc).
And of course stats on this are difficult, a significant number of people who keep a gun in the home lie about it when asked in surveys (which is the only way to really get the control data - you can get guns kept in houses being robbed from crime stats but not information about guns kept (or not kept) in houses that aren't robbed*). And people with high risk factors for getting shot tend to keep guns so controlling for other factors is hard - a gang member for example is more likely to be violent and more likely to keep a gun (and more likely to lie about keeping a gun in a survey).
Both "slightly improbable" to "barely a chance in hell" mean there is a chance and hence the logical claim that presents the the opposite as a certain fact is flawed.
"If one's relationship with government is a net loss, then logically, any force that works to reduce the size and strength of government serves to reduce one's losses" is simply not true. It is in fact possible that a force that works to reduce the size and strength of the government could leave one's losses unchanged or reduce them. It doesn't matter what the chances are since it was a claim of certainty not of probabilities.
Of course people who don't know Chinese or have the context of internet censorship aren't going to get the joke.
You're making up the looking down and condescension, it'd just a discussion of how people from different cultures are different. It might be incorrect, people could have the wrong impressions entirely, but it isn't condescending. But of course you will see it that way, it's your normal bias.
So I guess that's part of the reason the US is so crazy with tazers. Places that don't want their police to be thugs limit them to situations in which the police or the public are in danger of physical violence, not cases where a person just doesn't follow instructions.
If my relationship with government is already a net loss, then naturally, a bigger government can only worsen the loss. And a smaller government would naturally reduce the loss.
That's simply not a true statement. A bigger government could interact with you less than a smaller one, since it's actions don't have to be a super set of the smaller one.
You have assumed that more money going into government would not only (1) change my relationship with government, but (2) for the better. But you don't know anything about me except that my relationship with government is a net loss. So exactly what data did you use to arrive at your conclusion? The answer is that you used your own relationship with goverment as a model to predict mine. That's invalid.
I assumed no such thing. The word "could" has a meaning and it isn't "must". I don't need to know anything about you to arrive at my conclusion that there's a non-zero probability that more tax revenue from other people going to the government could benefit you. It could also harm you. It could also make no difference. I didn't declare either one a certainty, or even assign likelihoods to them.
All I said was that a smaller government is not a certainty to reduce your loss. It's probably likely, but you didn't make a claim of probabilties you made a declaration of certainty.
If other people paid more tax then the government would have more money to spend, that could change that relationship to a net gain for you. So logically it makes no sense to want others to evade taxes.
It'd be pretty hard not to cover the small amount taxes $35k/year pays though.
If they're barking up the wrong tree then at some point the mess of explanations will be crazy enough and someone will be smart enough to provide a simpler and better explanation and the accepted theory will change.
You know, like has happened over and over again in the past. The heliocentric model replacing the geocentric one. Caloric theory replacing phlogiston theory. And so on.
You don't need to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents. You just need to increase it to the level at which your second strike will overwhelm the other sides defenses and wipe them out. Of course that level might increase over time but you don't need to have a larger arsenal than your opponents.
You probably need to start using a bigger font in your old age if you read that semicolon as a comma. Or a better font the f and the ; might merge and look like f, in some.
"stock prices" includes things like "the stock price went up 50% in the last 3 seconds" and "the stock price went down 10% in the last 6 months". Lots of people use that as the sole factor in decision making - technical traders and momentum traders do that all the time.
That doesn't mean they aren't idiots of course. Though if you can do it with someone else's money and skim bonuses and commissions off the top when things go well and have no part of the downside when it blows up then why wouldn't you?
You don't. You trust (well the idea anyway) one of them to mainly investigate crimes after the fact and the other two to do various things related to reseach and exploration of deep space and aerospace.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that wasn't obvious from the context or anything.
Apple created their own private hedge fund instead. It probably holds a bunch of corporate paper, yes, but that's unlikely to be all they hold.
If you believe Apple's SEC filing though, they earned $1,088,000,000 in interest and dividends on their $121,251,000,000 in "cash" or 0.9%. If you instead take the prior years "cash" then you have $81,570,000,000 in "cash" for 1.3%. Since the cash was generated throughout the year and not all at the start or the end the actual rate is somewhere between those.
So why does Apple not use one of these mythical,bank accounts (aside from that they lose their cash if the bank goes bust, which you don't seem to consider an issue)?
Yeah I'm being US centric, and also thinking that routine delaying doesn't go for more than 4-5 months (way late on 90 day terms).
And if you deposited $4bn with one bank then you deserve to lose it all overnight.
Why does Apple not get in on this free money with it's $100bn? Oh I know, because it's a figment of your imagination.
Because some random app could subvert the permissions it was granted at install and do whatever the hell it wants?
That isn't "collecting interest while that money's in the bank" which is clearly referring to interest earned on money they have deposited with a bank.
And they have all their terrorist and drug gang contacts to convince people to pay up.
Where are they getting 8%/yr interest at the moment?
As I said the city asked the judge to dismiss it, which is an indicator the city thinks they won't win - they didn't ask to dismiss all the other speeding fine cases after all. And the police said is was an error. Both of which are refenced from links in the article.
The city asked the Judge to dismiss the case would be a large hint.
That the police said it was an error would be another one.
That the whole idea of the two photos is to have photos with a time offset so you can show the car was speeding would also make it pretty obvious.
You can think that, you are allowed to be wrong after all.
Do you have stats for that?
I'm not sure what you count as an intruder, but lets count Burglury and Robberies for this back of the envelope check. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls tells us that there were 860 murders during those crimes. Two orders of magnitudes would mean that we'd need there to be 86000 killings by guns (assuming that the populations are the same - which they aren't some people don't have guns in the home but can be robbed after all). But http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html only has 31,672 firearm deaths in 2010.
Of course some of those 860 murders might be robbers killing fellow robbers or police killing robbers or whatever. Then again some of those 31,672 deaths are not going to be of the household member of a gun owner.
Even if "orders of magnitude" is true, then the conclusion doesn't follow since guns are not kept just to kill intruders. They are also kept to stop an intruder without killing them (scaring them away, etc).
And of course stats on this are difficult, a significant number of people who keep a gun in the home lie about it when asked in surveys (which is the only way to really get the control data - you can get guns kept in houses being robbed from crime stats but not information about guns kept (or not kept) in houses that aren't robbed*). And people with high risk factors for getting shot tend to keep guns so controlling for other factors is hard - a gang member for example is more likely to be violent and more likely to keep a gun (and more likely to lie about keeping a gun in a survey).
Both "slightly improbable" to "barely a chance in hell" mean there is a chance and hence the logical claim that presents the the opposite as a certain fact is flawed.
"If one's relationship with government is a net loss, then logically, any force that works to reduce the size and strength of government serves to reduce one's losses" is simply not true. It is in fact possible that a force that works to reduce the size and strength of the government could leave one's losses unchanged or reduce them. It doesn't matter what the chances are since it was a claim of certainty not of probabilities.
Homophones and plays on words are hardly unique to China. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAG39jKi0lI
Of course people who don't know Chinese or have the context of internet censorship aren't going to get the joke.
You're making up the looking down and condescension, it'd just a discussion of how people from different cultures are different. It might be incorrect, people could have the wrong impressions entirely, but it isn't condescending. But of course you will see it that way, it's your normal bias.
So I guess that's part of the reason the US is so crazy with tazers. Places that don't want their police to be thugs limit them to situations in which the police or the public are in danger of physical violence, not cases where a person just doesn't follow instructions.
That's simply not a true statement. A bigger government could interact with you less than a smaller one, since it's actions don't have to be a super set of the smaller one.
I assumed no such thing. The word "could" has a meaning and it isn't "must". I don't need to know anything about you to arrive at my conclusion that there's a non-zero probability that more tax revenue from other people going to the government could benefit you. It could also harm you. It could also make no difference. I didn't declare either one a certainty, or even assign likelihoods to them.
All I said was that a smaller government is not a certainty to reduce your loss. It's probably likely, but you didn't make a claim of probabilties you made a declaration of certainty.
Your logic is faulty.
If other people paid more tax then the government would have more money to spend, that could change that relationship to a net gain for you. So logically it makes no sense to want others to evade taxes.
It'd be pretty hard not to cover the small amount taxes $35k/year pays though.
That's how science is supposed to work.
If they're barking up the wrong tree then at some point the mess of explanations will be crazy enough and someone will be smart enough to provide a simpler and better explanation and the accepted theory will change.
You know, like has happened over and over again in the past. The heliocentric model replacing the geocentric one. Caloric theory replacing phlogiston theory. And so on.
No he's routing traffic that wouldn't have been going to a romanian company so that it will go to one. Maybe try reading?
Why are you sending your traffic to a Romanian internet services company?
You don't need to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents. You just need to increase it to the level at which your second strike will overwhelm the other sides defenses and wipe them out. Of course that level might increase over time but you don't need to have a larger arsenal than your opponents.
You probably need to start using a bigger font in your old age if you read that semicolon as a comma. Or a better font the f and the ; might merge and look like f, in some.
"stock prices" includes things like "the stock price went up 50% in the last 3 seconds" and "the stock price went down 10% in the last 6 months". Lots of people use that as the sole factor in decision making - technical traders and momentum traders do that all the time.
That doesn't mean they aren't idiots of course. Though if you can do it with someone else's money and skim bonuses and commissions off the top when things go well and have no part of the downside when it blows up then why wouldn't you?
That would be against the law (doesn't mean it doesn't happen of course), and isn't what is being discussed.
You don't. You trust (well the idea anyway) one of them to mainly investigate crimes after the fact and the other two to do various things related to reseach and exploration of deep space and aerospace.