Yea, I response of "We got your comment, thanks for your input. " from an automated bot...
Comments don't need to be addressed. The issues raised MIGHT be addressed, but this too is not required.
I seem to recall when BPL was being discussed, you know, where they where talking about letting broad spectrum RF be carried over power lines to get internet to remote places, the Ham radio community had all sorts of "issues" with this and posted all sorts of unique comments about the question for the FCC to review... It didn't matter one little bit, they voted to move forward with the testing and the very issues raised in those comments proved true. The FCC commissioners didn't care about the comments, even the ones which raised the proper technical objections, which sadly proved to be all too true.
So, I know what the rules are, but the reality is they don't matter in the end. Certainly the number of comments doesn't matter. The commissioners vote the way they are told to vote.
The FCC commissioners actually reviewed these comments... Or what's the issue? It's not like they counted "yes" and 'no" votes from the comments.
I can tell you that the FCC commissioners are not prone to paying any attention to public comments. They MAY use them to justify their perspective, in the case they actually do, but no commissioner will care if they don't. Nobody is out counting comments to determine what way to vote. They have pollsters and their political appointers to determine how they vote, the comments are meaningless for this.
So it doesn't matter where the public comments came from, not one bit.
You may think they make you look good, but in reality they just expose your lack of thought on the subject in question. Maybe you just don't have a valid argument? Maybe you just want to throw mud? I don't know. But it's apparent you have nothing substantive to add...
so you think secret fisa courts with secret gag orders that you aren't allowed to challenge are all constitutional?
Possibly could be just fine under some circumstances, but I do agree that we are on a slippery slope with the FISA thing.
The issue boils down to what can be done with the data the FISA court approved and by whom it can be done. I think the FISA law is attempting to walk an extremely thin line that is hard to draw brightly.
FISA isn't overtly unconstitutional.... However, it depends greatly on those people charged with keeping track of what's going on to keep things out of the weeds, including the oversight of the program by Congress. I'm not so sure the oversight is being properly done and partisan politics hasn't crept into the process, but we don't have proof of this kind of thing... Yet....
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.
Is that blue partisan Cool-Aide tasty? I think you have been drinking a bit too much of it.
Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist... I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children, in fact, I don't know even one true republican who fits that description, including Trump. Lay off the blue stuff. You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.
Maybe these things should simply be assumed and don't need to appear in every mission statement know to man?
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
And if you think about their activity... Openness and transparency might not be a good thing to put in a mission statement where it could be misconstrued by individuals in the organization dedicated to the clandestine collection of information.
So.. You can just buy a car using a bank loan and then sell the car for cash and the bank has no way to enforce their interest in the car other than to sue you to collect? Dang, that's a scam just waiting to happen you know. I'll be the banks hate this and have to charge serious interest to make up for their losses..
If you squat in a property that is not registered for long enough, not paying rent, etc., then the property becomes yours. This does occasionally happen.
This happens here too. We inherited "common law" from you guys. We call it "Adverse Possession" and it involves occupying a property long enough to establish that the owner isn't interested in or capable of maintaining ownership. This is very rare here too as the process is time consuming and involves court actions...
It was the farmers that were lazy. Contributing members of farming communities generally worked an average of 2 hours a day year-round. Imagine surviving on two hours a day today.
I assume you are joking..
I grew up on a farm... 2 hours a day on average? Seriously? It took 2 hours just to milk the cows in the morning... Then there was feeding them, cleaning the barn after the inevitable happens after you feed them AND then milking them in the evening which too another 2 hours. In between morning chores and the evening milking was all the seasonal stuff, including fence repair and putting up hay in the summer, breaking ice and feeding hay in the winter and a whole host of odd jobs related to staying warm, fed and dry year round. We got a bit more sleep in the winter, but in the summer it was pretty much up and down with the sun and work in the middle.
I don't know where your 2 hour number came from, but I can assure you it wasn't possible on the farm I was raised on.
In fact, this experience is what drove me into this technical field. Milking cows in a freezing barn on a cold winter morning wasn't my idea of a good time and neither was throwing bails of hay around all summer. Man I hated that stuff... (And green beans... I still hate green beans..)
So in the UK, In the case of disputes, how is it decided? Say the bank says you didn't pay off the loan or your neighbor says the car is theirs and your house burned down so you don't have a bill of sale or anything else to defend yourself. They have the keys to your car because they found them in the soldering ruins of your house after the fire got put out... There are no license plates on it, or insurance because it was an off road vehicle and there hasn't been for a decade.
What are you going to do to prove it's yours? Surely the government has SOMETHING that says, "this vehicle belongs to this person" someplace....
In the USA, we track such stuff almost EXACTLY like land, only instead of the county keeping the records, the state does. So in my hypothetical above, we'd contact the state, give them the VIN number of the vehicle in question, have them search their records and see who the current owner is. This is what we call the "title" and we have them for vehicles, trailers and other things like boats. Aircraft are even titled (although at the federal level). Pretty much any real property you can put up as collateral for a loan has a "title" in the USA and I'm guessing in the UK too.
I'm guessing the issue is more the terms we use more than anything.
If it is a continual struggle to meet one's obligations month to month and you cannot save anything because of it, you need to reduce expenses. If you are hitting the credit cards to survive and cannot pay them in full at the end of the month, you are digging a hole and I suggest you stop.
My point here is many people who struggle to make ends meet do so because of their own choices. It need not be this way.
Look, I'm not insensitive to their plight, I've been there and made the same mistakes they are making. I've been in debt and struggled too. But I decided that it was time for me to take control and fix the situation. That means I stopped spending money on expensive (to me) things and made do with what I could afford on what I earned. I worked, put money away, paid off the debt and now am in a much better place, living better than I could before. It can be done, though I admit that the deeper in the hole you are, the harder it is to get out and the longer it takes. My suggestion is to not dig the hole to start, don't live above your means.
Folks need to realize that THEY are responsible for their welfare because nobody else will, including the government, and THEY need to take steps to fend for themselves now an in retirement.
DURING the great depression we had those numbers, but not before the stock market crashed.
Most people lived in rural society and could grow their own food on the family farm for most of our history. Poverty based on income doesn't usually measure barter or what you can grow on your own. So it's kind of hard to describe "poverty" in terms of per capita income back in the day.
I'm calling BS on this for most people.. I dare say MOST people CAN and should save for retirement.
If your earnings don't allow for saving for retirement, then you are living at the subsistence social security level for your whole life and won't be shocked when retirement happens. So if you think "comfortable" is something above what you could do on SS when you are old and your current income allows you to spend more than that, you are trading today's "comfort" for decades of uncomfortable poverty if you don't save part of that excess.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of folks who think they just don't have enough to save and live "comfortably" are really living beyond their means to start with. If you have a job and make more than what welfare pays, you should be able to save some for retirement, maybe not a lot, but some.
You see, what this "comfortably" thing usually means is I don't have everything I want and my credit cards are maxed out so I cannot make the minimum payments... In which case, you've been digging a deep hole of debt, which is HARD to get out of and takes a long time of being ultra disciplined. But, in reality, if you get into this debt cycle, your standard of living WILL decline below your income anyway. In those cases you are working to pay interest and not to live, so you end up at a lower standard of living.
There is a whole lot more over spenders than under spenders.
My wife almost died a couple of times too when my kids where very young. Once from pancreatitis when a retained gall stone blocked her bile duct even though her gall bladder had been removed 2 years before and the second time when she came down with sarcoidosis stumping her doctors for almost a week. My kids where both in grade school at the time. So I know what you are talking about.
Not knowing when you are going to die is only an excuse to spend for some. There is a balance in life as in anything, but MOST people spend too much, very few to little. The actuarial tables in the USA are a good place to start for retirement planning, they will tell you how old you will likely be when you die. I'd plan for something in the 90 percentile or so and work from there. Personally, I don't mind leaving a few bucks for the kids so over shooting isn't a problem.
I have known one guy who was a confirmed under spender. He died, worth tens of millions, in his one room log cabin with one light bulb in the early 80's with no one to leave it to but a distant relative he never saw. That's sad... But it wasn't nearly as sad as my grandmother who died having lived on Social Security for multiple decades and the sweet old lady who I knew growing up in the same situation. Living where you have to choose between food or medication is a sad existence too. There is a middle road here.
But most of the complainers out there live beyond their means and work as contractors to collect that extra bit of cash to spend now, instead of saving it for the future. I know because I've had people tell me that's why they contract.
Too few people take responsibility for planning for their financial futures and end up looking at trying to live the 20 years after retirement on Social Security alone. When they get there, the suddenly realize that what Social Security pays doesn't scratch the surface of what they where used to, but by then, it's too late. Contracting just makes it all that much harder to save enough, because it's so tempting to just spend the money as you get it, where if you work like me and never see that 401k contribution, it's not so difficult because it's not in your paycheck.
But you are indeed correct. The issue is taking responsibility for your savings yourself, even if you have a 401k.... It's your money, you should add to it regularly, keep track of it, nurse it and make sure it grows so you can retire.
There are structural problems with our society that allow this to happen.
What the.... Seriously?
You DO remember from history class that Social Security, Medicare, 401ks and pension plans didn't exist for the bulk of the USA's history. Seems to me that prior to the great depression folks lived pretty well and dealt with retirement just fine, caring for their own families, not just letting government do it.
The ISSUE in society is the "I have to have it now" bent we generally all have and a total lack of discipline in financial planning for rainy days. It used to be that being in debt was a bad thing, but now, having tens of thousands of unsecured debt is a way of life, where the struggle to make ends meet incudes being able to make the minimum payments on your credit cards and student loans.
I get that it's not always possible to control income and expenses, that unforeseen circumstances happen from time to time. But dang it folks, we need to plan ahead a whole lot better and start saving money. It's called delayed satisfaction and some of us where not taught that as children and now need to learn it as adults. Most of us will make more than a million dollars in our first decade of work but we pitter it away on junk and end up 10 years in with nothing but debt. That's just wrong...
So yes, the issue is our culture, the problem is within ourselves and inside the individual is where the solution is. We need to become responsible adults, live within our means and save for retirement ourselves, because it's apparent to me that there is zero chance the government or anybody else has enough resources to do it for me, you and everybody else too. You want to retire comfortably? It's up to you to make that happen. It doesn't matter if you work as a contractor, for yourself, or as an employee, YOU are responsible for you.
Ok. So that means the issue here is terminology.. A V5 "log book" is what we call a "Title" in the US. You call this a registration.
In the USA the registration establishes the link between the vehicle and the license plate issued by the state you live in. You would call that an "entitlement" that tells the government which car has your plate.
So, if you lose your "log book" you call the government to get another one, but you have to prove YOU are the current owner to do so. We have a similar process for Titles in the USA, although it's a bit more complex because each state/territory/district issues their own titles for vehicles owned within their borders and different requirements for issuing replacements or transferring titles.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say: "But the person who's name is on the title owns the vehicle (with consideration for any leans which may be recorded on the title.)"
The lean on the title says that the named entity has a lean on the asset and the owner isn't free to transfer title to another w/o consent from the lean holder. So I own the car, but I have to get the lean holder's permission (usually by paying off the loan) to transfer the title to somebody else.
I was trying to ask how they deal with this in the UK because the post I was responding to was saying they don't have titles in the UK.
It may not be worth the records search, but the state HAS the records and can find them if necessary.
I purchased a vehicle for $65 that had been sitting in a field for 15 years once. Missouri didn't have a problem finding the title and transferring it to me and I know the vehicle hadn't been registered while it sat there (the inspection sticker and registration stickers where both15 years old.) We gave them the VIN and they found the title and given the seller was the owner, transferred the title to me. This was back in 1979 even..
I so wish I had that car back... It was a 100% stock 55 Chevy, worth a small fortune today and I let it go for $250 in 81...
So...The registration is legal proof of ownership? How do you handle leans when you borrow money to buy a car? So IF I head down to the government office that handles registrations, I can register YOUR car, buy insurance for it and after a couple of years just call it mine?
In the USA the registration just proves you own the license plate and tells authorities what car it's attached to. It doesn't establish ownership of the car. Anybody can buy insurance on any car they like, just give them the VIN and pay the fees. But the person who's name is on the title owns the vehicle (with consideration for any leans which may be recorded on the title.)
So these things establish ownership in your country? There are no Title records? Remind me not to own a car over there...
I've got to say, that IF this really is the state of affairs over there, (and I seriously doubt it is, but have no way to prove otherwise) you guys are crazy.
I'm guessing that had they needed any of those 8 spaces, they would quickly have removed the test cars.
It seems likely that this business failed because not enough people parked their cars there at a profitable price point, not that they lacked sufficient capacity because 8 spaces where unavailable...
P/E ratios above 30 means... Sell Short! Wait for the correction then cover for profit.
Unless somebody expects Netflix to turn 2x the profit they are now, any company trading at 100 P/E is a really big balloon ready to pop. It might be worthy of some speculation money if the company is coming off some really bad news and trades at such prices, but I don't think this fits Netflix.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I response of "We got your comment, thanks for your input. " from an automated bot...
Comments don't need to be addressed. The issues raised MIGHT be addressed, but this too is not required.
I seem to recall when BPL was being discussed, you know, where they where talking about letting broad spectrum RF be carried over power lines to get internet to remote places, the Ham radio community had all sorts of "issues" with this and posted all sorts of unique comments about the question for the FCC to review... It didn't matter one little bit, they voted to move forward with the testing and the very issues raised in those comments proved true. The FCC commissioners didn't care about the comments, even the ones which raised the proper technical objections, which sadly proved to be all too true.
So, I know what the rules are, but the reality is they don't matter in the end. Certainly the number of comments doesn't matter. The commissioners vote the way they are told to vote.
The FCC commissioners actually reviewed these comments... Or what's the issue? It's not like they counted "yes" and 'no" votes from the comments.
I can tell you that the FCC commissioners are not prone to paying any attention to public comments. They MAY use them to justify their perspective, in the case they actually do, but no commissioner will care if they don't. Nobody is out counting comments to determine what way to vote. They have pollsters and their political appointers to determine how they vote, the comments are meaningless for this.
So it doesn't matter where the public comments came from, not one bit.
Ad hominem attacks are not valid logic...
You may think they make you look good, but in reality they just expose your lack of thought on the subject in question. Maybe you just don't have a valid argument? Maybe you just want to throw mud? I don't know. But it's apparent you have nothing substantive to add...
so you think secret fisa courts with secret gag orders that you aren't allowed to challenge are all constitutional?
Possibly could be just fine under some circumstances, but I do agree that we are on a slippery slope with the FISA thing.
The issue boils down to what can be done with the data the FISA court approved and by whom it can be done. I think the FISA law is attempting to walk an extremely thin line that is hard to draw brightly.
FISA isn't overtly unconstitutional.... However, it depends greatly on those people charged with keeping track of what's going on to keep things out of the weeds, including the oversight of the program by Congress. I'm not so sure the oversight is being properly done and partisan politics hasn't crept into the process, but we don't have proof of this kind of thing... Yet....
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.
Is that blue partisan Cool-Aide tasty? I think you have been drinking a bit too much of it.
Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist... I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children, in fact, I don't know even one true republican who fits that description, including Trump. Lay off the blue stuff. You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.
Citation please?
Rand Paul? Is that you?
Maybe these things should simply be assumed and don't need to appear in every mission statement know to man?
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
And if you think about their activity... Openness and transparency might not be a good thing to put in a mission statement where it could be misconstrued by individuals in the organization dedicated to the clandestine collection of information.
So.. You can just buy a car using a bank loan and then sell the car for cash and the bank has no way to enforce their interest in the car other than to sue you to collect? Dang, that's a scam just waiting to happen you know. I'll be the banks hate this and have to charge serious interest to make up for their losses..
If you squat in a property that is not registered for long enough, not paying rent, etc., then the property becomes yours. This does occasionally happen.
This happens here too. We inherited "common law" from you guys. We call it "Adverse Possession" and it involves occupying a property long enough to establish that the owner isn't interested in or capable of maintaining ownership. This is very rare here too as the process is time consuming and involves court actions...
It was the farmers that were lazy. Contributing members of farming communities generally worked an average of 2 hours a day year-round. Imagine surviving on two hours a day today.
I assume you are joking..
I grew up on a farm... 2 hours a day on average? Seriously? It took 2 hours just to milk the cows in the morning... Then there was feeding them, cleaning the barn after the inevitable happens after you feed them AND then milking them in the evening which too another 2 hours. In between morning chores and the evening milking was all the seasonal stuff, including fence repair and putting up hay in the summer, breaking ice and feeding hay in the winter and a whole host of odd jobs related to staying warm, fed and dry year round. We got a bit more sleep in the winter, but in the summer it was pretty much up and down with the sun and work in the middle.
I don't know where your 2 hour number came from, but I can assure you it wasn't possible on the farm I was raised on.
In fact, this experience is what drove me into this technical field. Milking cows in a freezing barn on a cold winter morning wasn't my idea of a good time and neither was throwing bails of hay around all summer. Man I hated that stuff... (And green beans... I still hate green beans..)
So in the UK, In the case of disputes, how is it decided? Say the bank says you didn't pay off the loan or your neighbor says the car is theirs and your house burned down so you don't have a bill of sale or anything else to defend yourself. They have the keys to your car because they found them in the soldering ruins of your house after the fire got put out... There are no license plates on it, or insurance because it was an off road vehicle and there hasn't been for a decade.
What are you going to do to prove it's yours? Surely the government has SOMETHING that says, "this vehicle belongs to this person" someplace....
In the USA, we track such stuff almost EXACTLY like land, only instead of the county keeping the records, the state does. So in my hypothetical above, we'd contact the state, give them the VIN number of the vehicle in question, have them search their records and see who the current owner is. This is what we call the "title" and we have them for vehicles, trailers and other things like boats. Aircraft are even titled (although at the federal level). Pretty much any real property you can put up as collateral for a loan has a "title" in the USA and I'm guessing in the UK too.
I'm guessing the issue is more the terms we use more than anything.
If it is a continual struggle to meet one's obligations month to month and you cannot save anything because of it, you need to reduce expenses. If you are hitting the credit cards to survive and cannot pay them in full at the end of the month, you are digging a hole and I suggest you stop.
My point here is many people who struggle to make ends meet do so because of their own choices. It need not be this way.
Look, I'm not insensitive to their plight, I've been there and made the same mistakes they are making. I've been in debt and struggled too. But I decided that it was time for me to take control and fix the situation. That means I stopped spending money on expensive (to me) things and made do with what I could afford on what I earned. I worked, put money away, paid off the debt and now am in a much better place, living better than I could before. It can be done, though I admit that the deeper in the hole you are, the harder it is to get out and the longer it takes. My suggestion is to not dig the hole to start, don't live above your means.
Folks need to realize that THEY are responsible for their welfare because nobody else will, including the government, and THEY need to take steps to fend for themselves now an in retirement.
Again that's BS.
DURING the great depression we had those numbers, but not before the stock market crashed.
Most people lived in rural society and could grow their own food on the family farm for most of our history. Poverty based on income doesn't usually measure barter or what you can grow on your own. So it's kind of hard to describe "poverty" in terms of per capita income back in the day.
I'm calling BS on this for most people.. I dare say MOST people CAN and should save for retirement.
If your earnings don't allow for saving for retirement, then you are living at the subsistence social security level for your whole life and won't be shocked when retirement happens. So if you think "comfortable" is something above what you could do on SS when you are old and your current income allows you to spend more than that, you are trading today's "comfort" for decades of uncomfortable poverty if you don't save part of that excess.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of folks who think they just don't have enough to save and live "comfortably" are really living beyond their means to start with. If you have a job and make more than what welfare pays, you should be able to save some for retirement, maybe not a lot, but some.
You see, what this "comfortably" thing usually means is I don't have everything I want and my credit cards are maxed out so I cannot make the minimum payments... In which case, you've been digging a deep hole of debt, which is HARD to get out of and takes a long time of being ultra disciplined. But, in reality, if you get into this debt cycle, your standard of living WILL decline below your income anyway. In those cases you are working to pay interest and not to live, so you end up at a lower standard of living.
There is a whole lot more over spenders than under spenders.
My wife almost died a couple of times too when my kids where very young. Once from pancreatitis when a retained gall stone blocked her bile duct even though her gall bladder had been removed 2 years before and the second time when she came down with sarcoidosis stumping her doctors for almost a week. My kids where both in grade school at the time. So I know what you are talking about.
Not knowing when you are going to die is only an excuse to spend for some. There is a balance in life as in anything, but MOST people spend too much, very few to little. The actuarial tables in the USA are a good place to start for retirement planning, they will tell you how old you will likely be when you die. I'd plan for something in the 90 percentile or so and work from there. Personally, I don't mind leaving a few bucks for the kids so over shooting isn't a problem.
I have known one guy who was a confirmed under spender. He died, worth tens of millions, in his one room log cabin with one light bulb in the early 80's with no one to leave it to but a distant relative he never saw. That's sad... But it wasn't nearly as sad as my grandmother who died having lived on Social Security for multiple decades and the sweet old lady who I knew growing up in the same situation. Living where you have to choose between food or medication is a sad existence too. There is a middle road here.
Agreed..
But most of the complainers out there live beyond their means and work as contractors to collect that extra bit of cash to spend now, instead of saving it for the future. I know because I've had people tell me that's why they contract.
Too few people take responsibility for planning for their financial futures and end up looking at trying to live the 20 years after retirement on Social Security alone. When they get there, the suddenly realize that what Social Security pays doesn't scratch the surface of what they where used to, but by then, it's too late. Contracting just makes it all that much harder to save enough, because it's so tempting to just spend the money as you get it, where if you work like me and never see that 401k contribution, it's not so difficult because it's not in your paycheck.
But you are indeed correct. The issue is taking responsibility for your savings yourself, even if you have a 401k.... It's your money, you should add to it regularly, keep track of it, nurse it and make sure it grows so you can retire.
There are structural problems with our society that allow this to happen.
What the.... Seriously?
You DO remember from history class that Social Security, Medicare, 401ks and pension plans didn't exist for the bulk of the USA's history. Seems to me that prior to the great depression folks lived pretty well and dealt with retirement just fine, caring for their own families, not just letting government do it.
The ISSUE in society is the "I have to have it now" bent we generally all have and a total lack of discipline in financial planning for rainy days. It used to be that being in debt was a bad thing, but now, having tens of thousands of unsecured debt is a way of life, where the struggle to make ends meet incudes being able to make the minimum payments on your credit cards and student loans.
I get that it's not always possible to control income and expenses, that unforeseen circumstances happen from time to time. But dang it folks, we need to plan ahead a whole lot better and start saving money. It's called delayed satisfaction and some of us where not taught that as children and now need to learn it as adults. Most of us will make more than a million dollars in our first decade of work but we pitter it away on junk and end up 10 years in with nothing but debt. That's just wrong...
So yes, the issue is our culture, the problem is within ourselves and inside the individual is where the solution is. We need to become responsible adults, live within our means and save for retirement ourselves, because it's apparent to me that there is zero chance the government or anybody else has enough resources to do it for me, you and everybody else too. You want to retire comfortably? It's up to you to make that happen. It doesn't matter if you work as a contractor, for yourself, or as an employee, YOU are responsible for you.
Ok. So that means the issue here is terminology.. A V5 "log book" is what we call a "Title" in the US. You call this a registration.
In the USA the registration establishes the link between the vehicle and the license plate issued by the state you live in. You would call that an "entitlement" that tells the government which car has your plate.
So, if you lose your "log book" you call the government to get another one, but you have to prove YOU are the current owner to do so. We have a similar process for Titles in the USA, although it's a bit more complex because each state/territory/district issues their own titles for vehicles owned within their borders and different requirements for issuing replacements or transferring titles.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say: "But the person who's name is on the title owns the vehicle (with consideration for any leans which may be recorded on the title.)"
The lean on the title says that the named entity has a lean on the asset and the owner isn't free to transfer title to another w/o consent from the lean holder. So I own the car, but I have to get the lean holder's permission (usually by paying off the loan) to transfer the title to somebody else.
I was trying to ask how they deal with this in the UK because the post I was responding to was saying they don't have titles in the UK.
A mystery raised and solved all in the same summary!
Talk about efficient reporting...
Or just fake news.. Depends on how you look at it.
"next to impossible" means it's possible.
It may not be worth the records search, but the state HAS the records and can find them if necessary.
I purchased a vehicle for $65 that had been sitting in a field for 15 years once. Missouri didn't have a problem finding the title and transferring it to me and I know the vehicle hadn't been registered while it sat there (the inspection sticker and registration stickers where both15 years old.) We gave them the VIN and they found the title and given the seller was the owner, transferred the title to me. This was back in 1979 even..
I so wish I had that car back... It was a 100% stock 55 Chevy, worth a small fortune today and I let it go for $250 in 81...
So...The registration is legal proof of ownership? How do you handle leans when you borrow money to buy a car? So IF I head down to the government office that handles registrations, I can register YOUR car, buy insurance for it and after a couple of years just call it mine?
In the USA the registration just proves you own the license plate and tells authorities what car it's attached to. It doesn't establish ownership of the car. Anybody can buy insurance on any car they like, just give them the VIN and pay the fees. But the person who's name is on the title owns the vehicle (with consideration for any leans which may be recorded on the title.)
So these things establish ownership in your country? There are no Title records? Remind me not to own a car over there...
I've got to say, that IF this really is the state of affairs over there, (and I seriously doubt it is, but have no way to prove otherwise) you guys are crazy.
I'm guessing that had they needed any of those 8 spaces, they would quickly have removed the test cars.
It seems likely that this business failed because not enough people parked their cars there at a profitable price point, not that they lacked sufficient capacity because 8 spaces where unavailable...
Perception is worth more than reality it seems.
It ALWAYS is. The trick is to learn to profit from perceptions which are wrong.
P/E ratios above 30 means... Sell Short! Wait for the correction then cover for profit.
Unless somebody expects Netflix to turn 2x the profit they are now, any company trading at 100 P/E is a really big balloon ready to pop. It might be worthy of some speculation money if the company is coming off some really bad news and trades at such prices, but I don't think this fits Netflix.