Really, what do you think they should drive? They made a choice that had no negative change on their fleet mileage. You're mad that it didn't go up. What did go up, was their ability to go over and through obstacles in their way during a pursuit. They also increased their capacity to haul officers, criminals, and equipment around the city. You most likely pay more taxes for the guy driving the vehicle than for the vehicle itself.
And maybe not everyone wants to drive a Suburban or Escalade just to keep their head off the headliner.
I know I prefer driving cars that don't cram my head against a headliner no matter what kind of car they are. Fortunately there are quite variable headrooms among different cars. It is often not straightforward. Yes, a suburban or escalade will have lots of room, but some compacts have more headroom than mid-size. The size of the cars exterior does not necessarily dictate that the interior headroom will match.
Seagulls choking on plastic bags is a pretty clear example of 'bad for the environment,' I'll admit
I really don't see the problem with this. Seagulls are trash birds that do nothing but annoy people. If they are really stupid enough to choke to death on plastic bags they try to eat, screw them. It's not like it matters anyway, I haven't heard anything about seagulls being endangered. They're plentiful anywhere there's trash near a coast.
I think the world is starting to wise up. The idea that the market is anything but a casino has taken root.
This idea that the market is a casino is really just FUD that will keep large amounts of people from ever moving into the investor class.
It is demonstrable that the current highs in the market have little to no effect on the rest of the economy...
Are you expecting the market highs to have an effect on other things? The market value is the thing that gets effected by the economy, not the other way around. It sounds like you aren't too interested in investing in equities, but you can calculate your own valuation for any company stock. Then you can have actual data to back up your ideas on the market.
I remember a lot of argument on old bitcoin posts about whether bitcoins were a deflationary currency or not. It is certainly looking that they are right now. The value of them is increasing with time allowing one bitcoin to buy more and more with each passing day. So with the current market, why would someone spend bitcoins? They can wait a day and spend less coins for the same goods, or wait two days and possibly spend even less. This will kill it as a currency. Bitcoin will be solely used as an investment for speculation soon.
Way to be helpful. The entire history of investing? Are you implying that any investment that goes up this fast, or hits $1000 is going to crash? I'd still like to hear at least one specific indication that a crash is imminent. I'm not taking a side, until I see some of these indications.
But its profits stay sky high. Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share. But Apple will keep selling at far larger profits, because yes in fact people really do want their phones and tablets.
Sorry, your Apple hatred doesn't fly anymore.
You are basically saying that Apple is a luxury brand and doesn't need large volume of sales to make large profits. Lets compare this to other markets.
Bentley makes luxury cars. They don't sell large volumes, but make good profits. Ford and GM sell massively more cars, cars that you might call "cheap" and "worthless". Guess which companies touch far more lives and can make or break the introduction of technology to their products?
This is very similar to what happened to Apple in the desktop market. They strove for a higher end machine that lost market share to IBM AT clones. That has not changed since. Recently their minimal market share in desktops has increased somewhat, but it is a) still very small and b) mostly caused by a bump in the company profile from mobile devices.
Before you get your self all worked up. I am not saying that Apple doesn't make great products. I am saying that their business tactics tend to move them into the smaller marketshare higher profit sector and they tend to give up their advantage in defining a new market.
no it doesn't. The proof states that for any integer N, there exists at least one pair of prime number greater than N that have a gap between them that is not more than 600. There is also very likely a pair of consecutive primes greater than N with a gap larger than 600.
I have one question: Why did you bother posting such off topic comments on this thread? There is a mod specifically for "Off-Topic" so no one will even read your rants. Go find a forum where people will be receptive to your message. Just yelling at people about things doesn't bring them over to your side.
You're making this too difficult. There are numerous apps to store SnapChat messages in the Play store. I imagine the same is true for other platforms. All you need to do is a screen grab. Don't bother with encryption functions, etc. Your client has all that to show you the original message. Just take a screen grab before it disappears.
Is there some crazy patent that SnapChat has? Why again couldn't Facebook or anyone else build "self-destructing" messages for well less than $3 billion?
Universally? There are countries where it's legal to wed a girl, then less than a year later demand the brideprice back because she died in labour... aged 11. So, no. Not by a long shot. That's just what prudish westerners like to think.
Moreover, I'd not say "fair enough", because it equates "looking at pictures of $crime" with "committing $crime". So, anyone who's looked at world press photos is now also guilty of war crimes then? No? Why the double standard?
While I think these blocks are the wrong way of addressing this problem, your comparison is a very poor one.
Unlike child abuse images, people looking at world press photos doesn't create a market for war crimes.
How can you look at two categories of images and make two different logical conclusions about the market for those images? They either both create markets for those images or they don't. If child abuse pics continue the cycle of abuse, war crime photos would do the same. The average person cannot commit war crimes as they cannot create their own war, but they can certainly commit violence and murder based on imagery they've seen.
Considering how much violence there is in movies, televisions shows, news telecasts, etc. I would say that the market for war crimes is absolutely enourmous and any new war crime photos would be shown on every media outlet for weeks until we've soaked up every last bit of violent pleasure from it.
When you throw away all logic about a subject because the content is such that you are deeply troubled / offended, you are not making rational sane choices. You are just engaged in a witch hunt.
It only makes sense. No police force can stop these sorts of crimes completely without having complete control over society. In that situation, doing what you can to make the general population think that something isn't happening is enough. Ignorance is bliss for the electorate.
Children are harmed and continue to be harmed the moment a photo is snapped of them... they have to go through life not knowing what has become of the pictures. This is why viewing such images is illegal and must be stopped- because it is indeed an ongoing form of abuse, and courts have ruled this way.
I will not argue that these pictures and their continuing availability isn't prolonging the pain and suffering that these victims went through. I do believe that the more acute and traumatic harm comes from the actual acts that were photographed and not the images of it. Therefore, it would be far better to help abuse victims by stopping the real physical trauma and dealing with images of it secondarily.
Removing images from search results does very little to actually remove and scrub this content from the world and it does even less for children being tortured at this moment. This is a public relations stunt that will not help the people that need it most.
True. Regular cabs with any bed are rare, the 4 doors are what people want.
Looking at the Ford.com build a vehicle page, taking a regular cab truck and wanting a 5 1/2' bed instead of the 6 1/2' bed is close to $8000 more. That's right $8k more for a smaller bed. An economic disincentive for people to get short beds. Chevy's page doesn't even offer the option to build a regular cab with a short bed. They just have regular and long beds. You have to get a 4 door or extended cab for a short bed. I'm sure the reasons are varied for this, but it's clear to see that they are eliminating or drastically reducing the models they offer with shorter wheelbases and therefore higher CAFE standards.
No. A bubble is not something that pops and completely vanishes. It is a situation where something is trading at values significantly above their intrinsic values. The perfect example is the tulip bubble in the 1600's. Tulips are certainly still around and being traded today. They did not vanish.
The popping of a bubble brings prices back to intrinsic values. In some cases that might be a worthless value, but not always.
For what it's worth, Enron was not a bubble. Enron was full of accounting fraud. They were fraudulently saying that the intrinsic value was more than it was. Accounting scandal broke and the value readjusted to what people realized was the true value - nothing, as the company went bankrupt.
3. Not harassing American citizens other than domestic terrorists like the Tea Party.
I don't much care for the Tea Party folks myself, but I wouldn't call them domestic terrorists. When was the last time they blew up a building? Refusing to compromise with the broader populace and causing government gridlock are not illegal terrorist actions.
A lot of it is related to CAFE regulations. The newest CAFE regs are based around a vehicles footprint size - the area enclosed by a rectangle with the wheels as vertices. This is also why full size trucks with regular cabs and short beds aren't really a thing anymore. They need the larger footprint provided by a longer bed.
Basically larger vehicle footprint = lower acceptable fuel economy. The Rangers and other smaller trucks could easily be redesigned to meet the new standards, but they don't sell in large enough volumes to warrant the R&D expense.
Funny enough, these midsize trucks sell very well outside of the US. This is why Ford still makes a Ranger for those markets. In the US, you have Toyota Tacomas, Nissan Frontiers, Honda Ridgeline, and maybe next year the Chevy/GM Colorado/Canyon will be brought back.
They would maximize their profits if they made a few light trucks so that a customer like me would actually buy one. F series being their only offering will not make me buy a larger truck than I need.
OBI is an example of passive two-phase cooling, which uses a boiling liquid to remove heat from a surface and then condenses the liquid for reuse, all without a pump
It's light on details, but indicates that they are somehow reclaiming any boiled off fluid.
You can buy print books there. This is the same as browsing at BestBuy and then buying stuff on Amazon. You are leaching off a physical store so that you can get a better deal elsewhere. That is not a business model, that's a terrible customer that no one wants. If you're real world show room goes under, you didn't support them at all and can only blame yourself.
So, I say, charge me cover. Heck, charge everybody cover. $2 to come in. If you buy a book, offer a $2 discount.
If you want to support them, how about buying a $2 magazine or a book every now and then instead of suggest they charge an asinine cover that will run them out of business faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, what do you think they should drive? They made a choice that had no negative change on their fleet mileage. You're mad that it didn't go up. What did go up, was their ability to go over and through obstacles in their way during a pursuit. They also increased their capacity to haul officers, criminals, and equipment around the city. You most likely pay more taxes for the guy driving the vehicle than for the vehicle itself.
And maybe not everyone wants to drive a Suburban or Escalade just to keep their head off the headliner.
I know I prefer driving cars that don't cram my head against a headliner no matter what kind of car they are. Fortunately there are quite variable headrooms among different cars. It is often not straightforward. Yes, a suburban or escalade will have lots of room, but some compacts have more headroom than mid-size. The size of the cars exterior does not necessarily dictate that the interior headroom will match.
Seagulls choking on plastic bags is a pretty clear example of 'bad for the environment,' I'll admit
I really don't see the problem with this. Seagulls are trash birds that do nothing but annoy people. If they are really stupid enough to choke to death on plastic bags they try to eat, screw them. It's not like it matters anyway, I haven't heard anything about seagulls being endangered. They're plentiful anywhere there's trash near a coast.
I think the world is starting to wise up. The idea that the market is anything but a casino has taken root.
This idea that the market is a casino is really just FUD that will keep large amounts of people from ever moving into the investor class.
It is demonstrable that the current highs in the market have little to no effect on the rest of the economy...
Are you expecting the market highs to have an effect on other things? The market value is the thing that gets effected by the economy, not the other way around. It sounds like you aren't too interested in investing in equities, but you can calculate your own valuation for any company stock. Then you can have actual data to back up your ideas on the market.
Hey, my state isn't even on that map you insensitive clods!
I remember a lot of argument on old bitcoin posts about whether bitcoins were a deflationary currency or not. It is certainly looking that they are right now. The value of them is increasing with time allowing one bitcoin to buy more and more with each passing day. So with the current market, why would someone spend bitcoins? They can wait a day and spend less coins for the same goods, or wait two days and possibly spend even less. This will kill it as a currency. Bitcoin will be solely used as an investment for speculation soon.
Way to be helpful. The entire history of investing? Are you implying that any investment that goes up this fast, or hits $1000 is going to crash? I'd still like to hear at least one specific indication that a crash is imminent. I'm not taking a side, until I see some of these indications.
But its profits stay sky high. Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share. But Apple will keep selling at far larger profits, because yes in fact people really do want their phones and tablets.
Sorry, your Apple hatred doesn't fly anymore.
You are basically saying that Apple is a luxury brand and doesn't need large volume of sales to make large profits. Lets compare this to other markets.
Bentley makes luxury cars. They don't sell large volumes, but make good profits. Ford and GM sell massively more cars, cars that you might call "cheap" and "worthless". Guess which companies touch far more lives and can make or break the introduction of technology to their products?
This is very similar to what happened to Apple in the desktop market. They strove for a higher end machine that lost market share to IBM AT clones. That has not changed since. Recently their minimal market share in desktops has increased somewhat, but it is a) still very small and b) mostly caused by a bump in the company profile from mobile devices.
Before you get your self all worked up. I am not saying that Apple doesn't make great products. I am saying that their business tactics tend to move them into the smaller marketshare higher profit sector and they tend to give up their advantage in defining a new market.
If only I had mod points... It's up to you to determine what I would mod this.
Turn in your Geek card. That will measure Current draw by the device, NOT how much current the device can deliver.
Your geek card revoking powers have been stripped. The comment you replied to mentioned this exactly
Also this, AND the above mentioned devices will only tell your the voltage your device is currently drawing.
no it doesn't. The proof states that for any integer N, there exists at least one pair of prime number greater than N that have a gap between them that is not more than 600. There is also very likely a pair of consecutive primes greater than N with a gap larger than 600.
I have one question: Why did you bother posting such off topic comments on this thread? There is a mod specifically for "Off-Topic" so no one will even read your rants. Go find a forum where people will be receptive to your message. Just yelling at people about things doesn't bring them over to your side.
You're making this too difficult. There are numerous apps to store SnapChat messages in the Play store. I imagine the same is true for other platforms. All you need to do is a screen grab. Don't bother with encryption functions, etc. Your client has all that to show you the original message. Just take a screen grab before it disappears.
Is there some crazy patent that SnapChat has? Why again couldn't Facebook or anyone else build "self-destructing" messages for well less than $3 billion?
Universally? There are countries where it's legal to wed a girl, then less than a year later demand the brideprice back because she died in labour... aged 11. So, no. Not by a long shot. That's just what prudish westerners like to think.
Moreover, I'd not say "fair enough", because it equates "looking at pictures of $crime" with "committing $crime". So, anyone who's looked at world press photos is now also guilty of war crimes then? No? Why the double standard?
While I think these blocks are the wrong way of addressing this problem, your comparison is a very poor one.
Unlike child abuse images, people looking at world press photos doesn't create a market for war crimes.
How can you look at two categories of images and make two different logical conclusions about the market for those images? They either both create markets for those images or they don't. If child abuse pics continue the cycle of abuse, war crime photos would do the same. The average person cannot commit war crimes as they cannot create their own war, but they can certainly commit violence and murder based on imagery they've seen.
Considering how much violence there is in movies, televisions shows, news telecasts, etc. I would say that the market for war crimes is absolutely enourmous and any new war crime photos would be shown on every media outlet for weeks until we've soaked up every last bit of violent pleasure from it.
When you throw away all logic about a subject because the content is such that you are deeply troubled / offended, you are not making rational sane choices. You are just engaged in a witch hunt.
It only makes sense. No police force can stop these sorts of crimes completely without having complete control over society. In that situation, doing what you can to make the general population think that something isn't happening is enough. Ignorance is bliss for the electorate.
Children are harmed and continue to be harmed the moment a photo is snapped of them... they have to go through life not knowing what has become of the pictures. This is why viewing such images is illegal and must be stopped- because it is indeed an ongoing form of abuse, and courts have ruled this way.
I will not argue that these pictures and their continuing availability isn't prolonging the pain and suffering that these victims went through. I do believe that the more acute and traumatic harm comes from the actual acts that were photographed and not the images of it. Therefore, it would be far better to help abuse victims by stopping the real physical trauma and dealing with images of it secondarily.
Removing images from search results does very little to actually remove and scrub this content from the world and it does even less for children being tortured at this moment. This is a public relations stunt that will not help the people that need it most.
True. Regular cabs with any bed are rare, the 4 doors are what people want.
Looking at the Ford.com build a vehicle page, taking a regular cab truck and wanting a 5 1/2' bed instead of the 6 1/2' bed is close to $8000 more. That's right $8k more for a smaller bed. An economic disincentive for people to get short beds. Chevy's page doesn't even offer the option to build a regular cab with a short bed. They just have regular and long beds. You have to get a 4 door or extended cab for a short bed. I'm sure the reasons are varied for this, but it's clear to see that they are eliminating or drastically reducing the models they offer with shorter wheelbases and therefore higher CAFE standards.
No. A bubble is not something that pops and completely vanishes. It is a situation where something is trading at values significantly above their intrinsic values. The perfect example is the tulip bubble in the 1600's. Tulips are certainly still around and being traded today. They did not vanish.
The popping of a bubble brings prices back to intrinsic values. In some cases that might be a worthless value, but not always.
For what it's worth, Enron was not a bubble. Enron was full of accounting fraud. They were fraudulently saying that the intrinsic value was more than it was. Accounting scandal broke and the value readjusted to what people realized was the true value - nothing, as the company went bankrupt.
That really is a funny thing! Even if bitcoins went up in value that much, who would take bitcoins for a house?
3. Not harassing American citizens other than domestic terrorists like the Tea Party.
I don't much care for the Tea Party folks myself, but I wouldn't call them domestic terrorists. When was the last time they blew up a building? Refusing to compromise with the broader populace and causing government gridlock are not illegal terrorist actions.
A lot of it is related to CAFE regulations. The newest CAFE regs are based around a vehicles footprint size - the area enclosed by a rectangle with the wheels as vertices. This is also why full size trucks with regular cabs and short beds aren't really a thing anymore. They need the larger footprint provided by a longer bed.
Basically larger vehicle footprint = lower acceptable fuel economy. The Rangers and other smaller trucks could easily be redesigned to meet the new standards, but they don't sell in large enough volumes to warrant the R&D expense.
Funny enough, these midsize trucks sell very well outside of the US. This is why Ford still makes a Ranger for those markets. In the US, you have Toyota Tacomas, Nissan Frontiers, Honda Ridgeline, and maybe next year the Chevy/GM Colorado/Canyon will be brought back.
They would maximize their profits if they made a few light trucks so that a customer like me would actually buy one. F series being their only offering will not make me buy a larger truck than I need.
OBI is an example of passive two-phase cooling, which uses a boiling liquid to remove heat from a surface and then condenses the liquid for reuse, all without a pump
It's light on details, but indicates that they are somehow reclaiming any boiled off fluid.
The corporate stores may all be closed, but there are some franchises that live on in Alaska and Texas. Zombie Blockbusters
So, I say, charge me cover. Heck, charge everybody cover. $2 to come in. If you buy a book, offer a $2 discount.
If you want to support them, how about buying a $2 magazine or a book every now and then instead of suggest they charge an asinine cover that will run them out of business faster.