Last time I watched Cops, they let the girl go. She had walked out of a bar, gotten in her car, hit a police car, and then driven away smoking marijuana.
The cops chased them down and then made sure they had someone to come pick them up and told them that they should smoke at home. This was in Vegas.
The time before that was like you say though, the cops were front ending petty drug user's cars and impounding them, taking people in a bad spot in life (I'm told smart people don't buy drugs from strangers on the street) and removing their ability to get to work, in addition to locking them up for a bit.
Yeah, it's totally outrageous that an insurance company would want to accurately characterize the risk associated with each potential customer, I mean, that would let them do things like operate their business efficiently, or offer less risky customers lower rates (this is just the other way of saying that they will use the information to charge risky customers extra...).
Most people buy more than 1 gallon at a time. So that $1,000 is a fairly degenerate case.
And I'm not sure how many transactions you are doing with your bank that you actually care; say they pocket the full penny on each transaction. If you are doing 500 transactions a year, then they are swindling you to the tune of $5. But that is only if each transaction involves shifting a full penny (they don't), and if they all go down in favor of the bank (whereas they actually round in both directions)
Apple has better margins than the other box builder/consumer electronics hybrids (not all PC companies are particularly comparable to Apple these days; Dell and HP are pretty reasonable), but not better margins than Microsoft.
Selling the dominant operating system will probably always be cheaper than selling the hardware it runs on. Of course, operating systems are more and more treated as a commodity, so it all depends on whether people will continue to pay anything for Windows, and whether or not Microsoft can make good profits on $15 (which is still more than $0, but not punishingly more).
It isn't that interesting, most people are going to see that there is some difference in the degree of the violation of privacy, and also that there is some room for what Google did to have actually been a mistake (whereas the U.S. Marshals discussed here were explicitly violating policy and perhaps the law, they were actively subverting rules put in place to protect privacy, not being careless in what radio packets they saved to disk).
I realize that there are tens of millions of Chinese that fly every day, my point was more that there are hundreds of millions of Chinese that don't fly ever.
The "propping up" being discussed here is ~10% of revenues. And they can't really do it with fake sales (so they really can't reclassify a bunch of new revenues each year, the smaller divisions are too small to keep doing that). And they revised the previous numbers when making the comparisons, so the actual growth reported in the new filings is the actual growth of the newly organized division, not a trick (and it is clear that Windows continues to have pretty huge sales numbers).
So are they messing around with their accounting? Sure. But the case for them doing it to mislead investors (rather than, say, for internal organizational purpose) is pretty thin.
There isn't anything particularly brain twisting here, and I'm not sure what mistaken impression the revisions discussed in the article are supposed to create (before the revisions, the quarterly net income for the entire company is $5.4 billion on revenues of $16.2 billion, after the revisions it is exactly the same, most businesses would kill to be that profitable, and they would kill their mothers to have the 'billion' in those numbers).
I suppose it could all be a giant ploy to grossly overstate the increases in Windows sales, but I'm not sure how interesting that is from the perspective of an investor (and the 10-k is certainly written with investors in mind).
The Information Week story is quoting from an SEC filing that Microsoft made. A filing Microsoft knows is public. So Information Week didn't exactly bust anything open here, and you just have to decide if you care about Microsoft's results on a segment by segment basis, or if you are happy owning the company in general.
If the banks were suffering from their lax fraud controls, they would probably do something about it.
As it stands, the bank (the victim of the fraud that the bank failed to prevent) just pushes the problem off on some individual. So the laws are terrible there (it should be straightforward for someone to repudiate an account and hear nothing more from the institution that mistakenly opened said account).
I get the sense from a couple of GM vehicles that I have driven that the ECU is also limiting fuel input in order to protect the clutch and transmission (i.e., the damn things barely drag themselves up a hill even with the pedal on the floor; and yes, I realize I should probably downshift).
It doesn't really seem there is any way to immediately limit a mechanical over-rev (well, not one that would do less damage to the engine than the over-rev).
Slashdot Mirror
I live in a no-fault state (which probably doesn't mean they are unable to try to deny a claim, it just means they are unlikely to bother trying).
Conveniently, there is more than 1 greedy insurance company out there.
Last time I watched Cops, they let the girl go. She had walked out of a bar, gotten in her car, hit a police car, and then driven away smoking marijuana.
The cops chased them down and then made sure they had someone to come pick them up and told them that they should smoke at home. This was in Vegas.
The time before that was like you say though, the cops were front ending petty drug user's cars and impounding them, taking people in a bad spot in life (I'm told smart people don't buy drugs from strangers on the street) and removing their ability to get to work, in addition to locking them up for a bit.
Yeah, it's totally outrageous that an insurance company would want to accurately characterize the risk associated with each potential customer, I mean, that would let them do things like operate their business efficiently, or offer less risky customers lower rates (this is just the other way of saying that they will use the information to charge risky customers extra...).
Most people buy more than 1 gallon at a time. So that $1,000 is a fairly degenerate case.
And I'm not sure how many transactions you are doing with your bank that you actually care; say they pocket the full penny on each transaction. If you are doing 500 transactions a year, then they are swindling you to the tune of $5. But that is only if each transaction involves shifting a full penny (they don't), and if they all go down in favor of the bank (whereas they actually round in both directions)
Perhaps he has a seeing-eye bear.
Apple has better margins than the other box builder/consumer electronics hybrids (not all PC companies are particularly comparable to Apple these days; Dell and HP are pretty reasonable), but not better margins than Microsoft.
Selling the dominant operating system will probably always be cheaper than selling the hardware it runs on. Of course, operating systems are more and more treated as a commodity, so it all depends on whether people will continue to pay anything for Windows, and whether or not Microsoft can make good profits on $15 (which is still more than $0, but not punishingly more).
Surely AppsLib has had at least $1 of revenue (so Apple only accounts for nearly 100% of pmp app revenue).
Given that the slugs from both links share a format, I suspect it is rather more self promotional.
Or maybe you should be saying that Toyota is setting up astroturf green car blogs, rather than talking about the methods they use to do so.
They make money on each transaction you make with the card. They charge the vendor a fee.
This is how cards without an annual fee can have a reward program.
It isn't that interesting, most people are going to see that there is some difference in the degree of the violation of privacy, and also that there is some room for what Google did to have actually been a mistake (whereas the U.S. Marshals discussed here were explicitly violating policy and perhaps the law, they were actively subverting rules put in place to protect privacy, not being careless in what radio packets they saved to disk).
I realize that there are tens of millions of Chinese that fly every day, my point was more that there are hundreds of millions of Chinese that don't fly ever.
The "propping up" being discussed here is ~10% of revenues. And they can't really do it with fake sales (so they really can't reclassify a bunch of new revenues each year, the smaller divisions are too small to keep doing that). And they revised the previous numbers when making the comparisons, so the actual growth reported in the new filings is the actual growth of the newly organized division, not a trick (and it is clear that Windows continues to have pretty huge sales numbers).
So are they messing around with their accounting? Sure. But the case for them doing it to mislead investors (rather than, say, for internal organizational purpose) is pretty thin.
There isn't anything particularly brain twisting here, and I'm not sure what mistaken impression the revisions discussed in the article are supposed to create (before the revisions, the quarterly net income for the entire company is $5.4 billion on revenues of $16.2 billion, after the revisions it is exactly the same, most businesses would kill to be that profitable, and they would kill their mothers to have the 'billion' in those numbers).
I suppose it could all be a giant ploy to grossly overstate the increases in Windows sales, but I'm not sure how interesting that is from the perspective of an investor (and the 10-k is certainly written with investors in mind).
The Information Week story is quoting from an SEC filing that Microsoft made. A filing Microsoft knows is public. So Information Week didn't exactly bust anything open here, and you just have to decide if you care about Microsoft's results on a segment by segment basis, or if you are happy owning the company in general.
You'll have to forgive me for making a mildly western-centric post on this western-centric message board.
And really, isn't getting on any airplane a complicated thing for the average citizen of China or a developing nation?
The tone of your comment suggests that you think it is going to somehow be complicated to stay off of such planes over the next 20 years.
It will not be complicated to stay off such planes over the next 20 years.
Do you know if Conway was responsible for the incredibly lax maintenance of the blowout preventer?
A bit tough to blame Conway if BP was using it wrong.
If the banks were suffering from their lax fraud controls, they would probably do something about it.
As it stands, the bank (the victim of the fraud that the bank failed to prevent) just pushes the problem off on some individual. So the laws are terrible there (it should be straightforward for someone to repudiate an account and hear nothing more from the institution that mistakenly opened said account).
It's a little silly to accuse a billionaire of merely 'trying' to make CEO bucks.
It is true though, that if you make the os hard enough, the user won't know how to install anything.
I get the sense from a couple of GM vehicles that I have driven that the ECU is also limiting fuel input in order to protect the clutch and transmission (i.e., the damn things barely drag themselves up a hill even with the pedal on the floor; and yes, I realize I should probably downshift).
It doesn't really seem there is any way to immediately limit a mechanical over-rev (well, not one that would do less damage to the engine than the over-rev).
Ford's 3.5 Liter Ecoboost engine is putting out 350+ hp and 350+ foot-pounds of torque. I sort of doubt your van matches that.
So the advertisement should have a little form on it and only present the rate after the age is filled in?