Actually, in the first iron man movie it was a plot point leading up to that very scene that th.e U.S. military wasnt engaging to destroy the macgiffin/weapon because said terrorists were using human shields. Iron Man, being a super hero (and not a drone) equipped with magic technology could go in and do the viscerally satisfying deed.
Not sure what a super hero movie abojt a guy wearing a magic suit has to do with drone strikes. But lets agree, yes, war is hell.
This is one of those rare times in life where you should know exactly what you're buying. An overpriced ticket to ride on Mark Zuckerberg's crazy train. GL.
Uhm... no. That depends entirely on how the sale is structured.
Insiders aren't even allowed to sell (usually) on IPO day unless their sale was worked into the subscription. Even long after they have to announce their sale a few weeks ahead of time before being allowed to sell. (VC guys would be the definition of insiders).
Ultimately, the only people that make money on a baddly priced IPO are the folks that get in on the initial IPO subscription (outside buyers). That's not good for the company, and it dose nothing for the owners and initial capital investors.
Actually.. oddly enough that would mean that facebook priced its IPO perfectly. Ideally an IPO comes out at near or at the price the market will pay for the stock -- that is -- maximizes the value to the company for selling its shares. If the stock price had doubled today that would be good for investors that bought into the initial subscription to the IPO, but BAD for Facebook, and bad for Facebook's owners that sold off in the intial round of sales.
What makes media happy and what makes the company successful are not always the same thing.
The nation, as a whole, is far wealthier for the added output of the thousands of college grads that do better and make more money (and thus pay more taxes -- assuming they don't go into finance) than we lose in the minority of students that succeed in evading their student loan debt. Further, defaulting on a student loan today is not the same thing as never paying it back, in fact, since you can't discharge the debt in bankruptcy, it probably means you end up paying/more/ over the life of the loan than you would had you paid promptly.
Since this has apparently been forgotten, one does not NEED to install games onto your 360 -- the games are designed to be played off the dvd. Also, due to M$'s anti-piracy regimen, you need to insert the disc to play the game anyway. The only thing this 4gb drive would prevent is downloading games off xbox live . . . which is a bad deal anyway (no resale market).
Actually -- one of the basic ideas in economics generally, particularly big-dollar decisions, is that money now is more valuable than money next year (because of interest, inflation and opportunity cost). This is why there is multi-million dollar per year services industry which produces nothing but tax shelters and tax deferment strategies.
When rich people pay a bit more over time to have money now, we call it wisdom. When poor people do the same thing we call them stupid.
$75 over two years for a zero credit purchase that never appears on your credit report -- not all bad.
That is false. Sallie mae offers loan mangement svcs to many loan provoders. They manage the loan in exchange for a cut of the interest. When i log into sallie maes site it still lists the bank that holds the loan for each loan. Only 1 belongs to sallie mae.
Your premise is flawed. Government was *a* problem in the south, which the CRA/also/ fixed. It was not, however, the part of the law that caused Rand Paul to refuse to say he would vote for the CRA if he'd been in the Senate, and this is a discussion about that decision by Rand Paul -- stemming, as it does, from a statement by a Paul supporter that Paul's positions "aren't radical." So, taking us off on a tangent to argue over whether or not Jim Crow laws were bad (a classic straw man) just distracts from the issue at hand. Ann Coulter has actually written a book about how to derail conversations with liberals by doing exactly this kind of pedantic twist of argumentative hocus pocus. Okay, so you're winning over here, now DEFEND THE UNDEFENDABLE. What, you admit it's undefendable? I WIN!
or, in other words, pot, kettle, black.
The supreme courts have ruled that businesses are people and yet those "people" don't get 1st amendment rights? You don't see the conflict here?
(1) Supreme Court_, there is only one Supreme Court that gets to decide things about the U.S. Constitution. (2) Corporations are "people" only in certain specific ways - the Supreme Court has never said that "businesses" which may be sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies or corporations - are "people." (3) KKK and Black Panthers are voluntary associations. If you don't see the difference between skin color and voluntary affiliation -- then I cannot help you. Ignorant can be fixed, stupid is forever.
I know a few dozen who did take loans, did well, and then succeeded in life and became awesomely successful. But hey, fuck them right, they should know their place and stay in the mills if they can't find a handout... er I mean grant... to get them through college.
My parents paid cash for me (and then I paid them back once I had a job). ~$80,000 really isn't that much money if you learn to SACRIFICE and save you money instead of throwing it away on Comcast cable, Verizon cellservice, and other shit that you really (to be brutally honest) do not need.
So, you're saying everyone should just have parents who SACRIFICED their whole life (and had a good job) so kiddo can get a degree interest free?
Interesting. I'm certain your experience is that of the everyman. No doubt.
Naturally, out society should be based on the premise that one's success in life should be based on how much effort your parents put into paying your way up the ladder.
Odd... my loans may be managed by Salley Mae, but they're issued by the savings and loan affiliated with my school. I have no doubt they'd be out to fuck me good if I defaulted.
God bless you if you graduated into permanent or semi-permanent unemployment.
Yeah! Just ask Gabby Giffords, you know, the congress woman who was shot in the head in Arizona by a gun-wielding lunatic using a pistol with an extended clip that was illegal under the Clinton era gun laws. . . after all he was stopped when the his fellow Arizona citizens "where there are very liberal conceal carry laws" shot him . . . oh wait . . . actually he was stopped when he ran out of bullets and someone tackled him.
Geese . . . its like only the crazies carry their guns everywhere they go.
The part where it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Paul's problems with the CRA are about what the CRA forced private business owners to do, not what with state government.
Oracle is just doing what any rational actor would do in a system where being "nice" has practically zero reward, and where anybody can shut you down and steal your money at any time. When defense is not possible, you must attack first.
Google is absolutely the last company you need to worry about bringing a flotilla of patent suits. It took a concerted effort by Microsoft and Apple to get Google to even start looking at patent portfolio purchases (c'est la vie Motorolla, we knew ye well, but now you're worthless except for the sweet IPs). Oracle wanted to take a chunk out of google . . . period.
Slashdot Mirror
Avoid IPOs? But if he did buy, he would mot sell.
Actually, in the first iron man movie it was a plot point leading up to that very scene that th.e U.S. military wasnt engaging to destroy the macgiffin/weapon because said terrorists were using human shields. Iron Man, being a super hero (and not a drone) equipped with magic technology could go in and do the viscerally satisfying deed.
Not sure what a super hero movie abojt a guy wearing a magic suit has to do with drone strikes. But lets agree, yes, war is hell.
*ah hem* google. Freudian slip there.
This is one of those rare times in life where you should know exactly what you're buying. An overpriced ticket to ride on Mark Zuckerberg's crazy train. GL.
Uhm ... no. That depends entirely on how the sale is structured.
Insiders aren't even allowed to sell (usually) on IPO day unless their sale was worked into the subscription. Even long after they have to announce their sale a few weeks ahead of time before being allowed to sell. (VC guys would be the definition of insiders).
Ultimately, the only people that make money on a baddly priced IPO are the folks that get in on the initial IPO subscription (outside buyers). That's not good for the company, and it dose nothing for the owners and initial capital investors.
>cough I get ads for continue legal education, wine, cigars and liquor. I think they give you what you tell them you like.
Technically, Apple paid dividend. (singular). Time will tell if your statement becomes true later on.
Actually.. oddly enough that would mean that facebook priced its IPO perfectly. Ideally an IPO comes out at near or at the price the market will pay for the stock -- that is -- maximizes the value to the company for selling its shares. If the stock price had doubled today that would be good for investors that bought into the initial subscription to the IPO, but BAD for Facebook, and bad for Facebook's owners that sold off in the intial round of sales.
What makes media happy and what makes the company successful are not always the same thing.
-GiH
Good had the revenue to back it up their (much much lower) IPO valuation.
Google is hugely profitable. Facebook, less so.
The nation, as a whole, is far wealthier for the added output of the thousands of college grads that do better and make more money (and thus pay more taxes -- assuming they don't go into finance) than we lose in the minority of students that succeed in evading their student loan debt. Further, defaulting on a student loan today is not the same thing as never paying it back, in fact, since you can't discharge the debt in bankruptcy, it probably means you end up paying /more/ over the life of the loan than you would had you paid promptly.
Since this has apparently been forgotten, one does not NEED to install games onto your 360 -- the games are designed to be played off the dvd. Also, due to M$'s anti-piracy regimen, you need to insert the disc to play the game anyway. The only thing this 4gb drive would prevent is downloading games off xbox live . . . which is a bad deal anyway (no resale market).
Actually -- one of the basic ideas in economics generally, particularly big-dollar decisions, is that money now is more valuable than money next year (because of interest, inflation and opportunity cost). This is why there is multi-million dollar per year services industry which produces nothing but tax shelters and tax deferment strategies.
When rich people pay a bit more over time to have money now, we call it wisdom. When poor people do the same thing we call them stupid.
$75 over two years for a zero credit purchase that never appears on your credit report -- not all bad.
I think you don't understand what "loan" means.
That is false. Sallie mae offers loan mangement svcs to many loan provoders. They manage the loan in exchange for a cut of the interest. When i log into sallie maes site it still lists the bank that holds the loan for each loan. Only 1 belongs to sallie mae.
In other words you can't defend the position.
Your premise is flawed. Government was *a* problem in the south, which the CRA /also/ fixed. It was not, however, the part of the law that caused Rand Paul to refuse to say he would vote for the CRA if he'd been in the Senate, and this is a discussion about that decision by Rand Paul -- stemming, as it does, from a statement by a Paul supporter that Paul's positions "aren't radical." So, taking us off on a tangent to argue over whether or not Jim Crow laws were bad (a classic straw man) just distracts from the issue at hand. Ann Coulter has actually written a book about how to derail conversations with liberals by doing exactly this kind of pedantic twist of argumentative hocus pocus. Okay, so you're winning over here, now DEFEND THE UNDEFENDABLE. What, you admit it's undefendable? I WIN!
or, in other words, pot, kettle, black.
The supreme courts have ruled that businesses are people and yet those "people" don't get 1st amendment rights? You don't see the conflict here?
(1) Supreme Court_, there is only one Supreme Court that gets to decide things about the U.S. Constitution. (2) Corporations are "people" only in certain specific ways - the Supreme Court has never said that "businesses" which may be sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies or corporations - are "people." (3) KKK and Black Panthers are voluntary associations. If you don't see the difference between skin color and voluntary affiliation -- then I cannot help you. Ignorant can be fixed, stupid is forever.
There are grants, scholarships, GI Bill, etc.
I know a few dozen who did take loans, did well, and then succeeded in life and became awesomely successful. But hey, fuck them right, they should know their place and stay in the mills if they can't find a handout ... er I mean grant ... to get them through college.
My parents paid cash for me (and then I paid them back once I had a job). ~$80,000 really isn't that much money if you learn to SACRIFICE and save you money instead of throwing it away on Comcast cable, Verizon cellservice, and other shit that you really (to be brutally honest) do not need.
So, you're saying everyone should just have parents who SACRIFICED their whole life (and had a good job) so kiddo can get a degree interest free?
Interesting. I'm certain your experience is that of the everyman. No doubt.
Naturally, out society should be based on the premise that one's success in life should be based on how much effort your parents put into paying your way up the ladder.
Odd ... my loans may be managed by Salley Mae, but they're issued by the savings and loan affiliated with my school. I have no doubt they'd be out to fuck me good if I defaulted.
God bless you if you graduated into permanent or semi-permanent unemployment.
takes on new meaning.
First: that's nonsense, free people work much more effectively. Slaves have no motivation to produce more than any minimum that won't get them killed.
So . . . how is that likely to be /less/ than the worker who works 80 hours a week at two minimum wage jobs just to afford food and bed?
Yeah! Just ask Gabby Giffords, you know, the congress woman who was shot in the head in Arizona by a gun-wielding lunatic using a pistol with an extended clip that was illegal under the Clinton era gun laws. . . after all he was stopped when the his fellow Arizona citizens "where there are very liberal conceal carry laws" shot him . . . oh wait . . . actually he was stopped when he ran out of bullets and someone tackled him.
Geese . . . its like only the crazies carry their guns everywhere they go.
The part where it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Paul's problems with the CRA are about what the CRA forced private business owners to do, not what with state government.
I offer to serve on this jury as tribute!!
Oracle is just doing what any rational actor would do in a system where being "nice" has practically zero reward, and where anybody can shut you down and steal your money at any time. When defense is not possible, you must attack first.
Google is absolutely the last company you need to worry about bringing a flotilla of patent suits. It took a concerted effort by Microsoft and Apple to get Google to even start looking at patent portfolio purchases (c'est la vie Motorolla, we knew ye well, but now you're worthless except for the sweet IPs). Oracle wanted to take a chunk out of google . . . period.
This.