The place here in Cali has about 15% less floor space than the place in Houston, but the yard is about three times bigger.
Then you're not living in a high-demand area in California. Which makes Houston a silly comparison. Just how silly would be revealed if you were forthright enough to name the city in Cali. Which I'm guessing is why you're being so careful not to do so.
When you add everything up, it's not that much more expensive to live in the most beautiful part of California than it is to live in Houston, Texas.
My guess is that what you mean is that it's not that much more expensive for YOU (retired; little/no taxable income) to live in whatever it is YOU consider to be "the most beautiful part of California" (likely somewhere that's not close to a real job market, unlike Houston). Otherwise, this is simply nonsense.
Ok... then you're admitting you made a way overbroad statement at the beginning and are now reluctantly walking it back. Glad to be of help. Have a great weekend.
He wasn't jailed for leaking company information, he was jailed for insider trading
I'm not sure if you're trying to split hairs or didn't actually read the article. He made no trades -- he simply leaked the company information to someone who did:
Kennedy passed along information on first quarter 2015 earnings figures before they became public to Maziar Rezakhani, the fraternity brother. Rezakhani turned around and bought 4,400 shares of Amazon stock for $1.7 million.
I know actually reading TFA is a sign of weakness, but the memo doesn't claim that a company has the ability to throw someone in jail -- it simply points out that the government has that ability:
If you leak Snap Inc. information, you will lose your job and we will pursue any and all legal remedies against you. And that’s just the start. You can face personal financial liability even if you yourself did not benefit from the leaked information. The government, our investors, and other third parties can also seek their own remedies against you for what you disclosed. The government can even put you in jail.
The leaking of information, at most, is a tort. It is not a crime and there will be no jail!
Never, regardless of the character of the information leaked? In every country in which Snapchat has users?
It's easy to be cocky when your cockiness puts others at potential risk and not yourself. Are you willing to go to jail in the place of others who heed your faux legal advice and discover you were wrong?
So your argument is that because doctors/pharmacies sometimes make mistakes and prescribe/dispense the wrong dose, there's no harm in a manufacturing process that may or may not result in the dosage specified by the vast majority of correct prescriptions? You can't be serious.
Pulling up old threads trying to get the last word? That's pretty lame even for you.
I note you're just picking around the edges and didn't (because you can't) argue with the bottom-line fact that the minimum wage scale in Australia isn't even close to what you originally said it was. That collapses your entire argument. If you genuinely think Australian businesses aren't taking advantage of that significantly reduced wage scale for teenagers to significantly reduce their labor costs, then it's clear you have not the smallest shred of intellectual honesty.
Now get back to your nice, safe echo chamber -- I understand facts can be uncomfortable.
You could also say the Democrats want to dictate fine-grained detail of toxic waste disposal
I'm sure there's a healthy population of the young and young at heart that feel like they may as well live next to a leaking toxic waste dump if they can't constantly saturate their lines with Netflix and BitTorrent. For the rest of us, that's a super-strained analogy.
Cute, but you're missing my point. We're talking about people who are supposedly turning down old clothes because they're not fashionable enough. If that's really true, they're operating on a much higher Maslowian tier than people genuinely threatened with starvation.
Fashion trends are accelerating, new clothes are becoming as cheap as used ones, and poor countries are turning their backs on the secondhand trade.
This is fantastic news. If a country is in a position to turn up their collective noses at perfectly serviceable used clothing because it's not new/trendy enough, I think we can take that as an official declaration that they're in fine shape to fend for themselves all the way around.
Cite? I've spent some time looking through Comcast filings and haven't found that anywhere.
Same here. We'll see what he comes back with, but I suspect this has no basis in reality. He's been saying this for a long time, but until looking just now I didn't realize that when he first made the claim it was supposedly Cox admitting to $7/month.
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing.
You say this a lot. Putting aside for now the fact that this would be a very strange sort of statement to make in an SEC filing, as far as I can tell nobody else on the face of the planet appears to be talking about it, which is a bit weird if it's anywhere close to correct. Please provide a link to the specific SEC filing and the exact text you believe constitutes this "admission" so we can evaluate it for ourselves. Thanks.
I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, but in so far as it has become one, it is pretty clear that there's a pretty massive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at play here.
The Democrats want the government to dictate fine-grained details of how bits may and may not be fed down a pipe. The Republicans want to leave more of those decisions in the hands of private industry. IMO these positions are exceptionally consistent with the parties' overall worldviews.
This is not even a mildly controversial proposition. See, e.g., here.
Most of the research going on is done in Europe
You're acting as though I said the research itself is happening in the U.S. -- I don't know that one way or the other, and it doesn't matter. All the major pharma companies are multinational corporations, and regardless of where they're domiciled, they pocket premium prices for sales to the U.S., and they factor those expected premium prices into their sales projections, which in turn defines their R&D budget. You're arguing with basic math.
the rest of the civilized world (who pay 1/2 what we do for better results)
The problem with this old tired meme is that Americans' higher prices subsidize the rest of the world's lower prices. If we join the rest of the world and institute our own governmental price fixing, some combination of availability and/or innovation in care will disappear -- for everyone. There is no free lunch, no matter how many Bernie Sanders there are out there sweetly crooning otherwise to people who really really wish it were true.
(And if I'm late to the party and shittier-but-equal services for all is the actual goal, let's just be honest about that.)
Slashdot Mirror
The place here in Cali has about 15% less floor space than the place in Houston, but the yard is about three times bigger.
Then you're not living in a high-demand area in California. Which makes Houston a silly comparison. Just how silly would be revealed if you were forthright enough to name the city in Cali. Which I'm guessing is why you're being so careful not to do so.
Real estate is more expensive here in Cali, but we sold a place/bought a place, so it doesn't really figure into our expenses.
Ah, there it is. So if you ignore the astronomical cost of housing in California, the remaining expenses are comparable. You're shameless.
When you add everything up, it's not that much more expensive to live in the most beautiful part of California than it is to live in Houston, Texas.
My guess is that what you mean is that it's not that much more expensive for YOU (retired; little/no taxable income) to live in whatever it is YOU consider to be "the most beautiful part of California" (likely somewhere that's not close to a real job market, unlike Houston). Otherwise, this is simply nonsense.
Twitter would melt down overnight if they enforced this in an even remotely evenhanded way.
If this really was a disinformation campaign, it wasn't even vaguely successful.
Ok... then you're admitting you made a way overbroad statement at the beginning and are now reluctantly walking it back. Glad to be of help. Have a great weekend.
abused by ideologues asking their millions of flunkies to upvote . . . without a second thought
Abuse? Usually we call that an "election."
He wasn't jailed for leaking company information, he was jailed for insider trading
I'm not sure if you're trying to split hairs or didn't actually read the article. He made no trades -- he simply leaked the company information to someone who did:
Kennedy passed along information on first quarter 2015 earnings figures before they became public to Maziar Rezakhani, the fraternity brother. Rezakhani turned around and bought 4,400 shares of Amazon stock for $1.7 million.
Put both hands on the wheel, look ahead, and drive your goddamned cars.
You're single, I take it.
But do the ability to do so because you leaked company information? I'm not sure the courts would agree on that one.
Courts already have agreed with that one. Here's but one recent example: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/...
I know actually reading TFA is a sign of weakness, but the memo doesn't claim that a company has the ability to throw someone in jail -- it simply points out that the government has that ability:
If you leak Snap Inc. information, you will lose your job and we will pursue any and all legal remedies against you. And that’s just the start. You can face personal financial liability even if you yourself did not benefit from the leaked information. The government, our investors, and other third parties can also seek their own remedies against you for what you disclosed. The government can even put you in jail.
The leaking of information, at most, is a tort. It is not a crime and there will be no jail!
Never, regardless of the character of the information leaked? In every country in which Snapchat has users?
It's easy to be cocky when your cockiness puts others at potential risk and not yourself. Are you willing to go to jail in the place of others who heed your faux legal advice and discover you were wrong?
So your argument is that because doctors/pharmacies sometimes make mistakes and prescribe/dispense the wrong dose, there's no harm in a manufacturing process that may or may not result in the dosage specified by the vast majority of correct prescriptions? You can't be serious.
Pulling up old threads trying to get the last word? That's pretty lame even for you.
I note you're just picking around the edges and didn't (because you can't) argue with the bottom-line fact that the minimum wage scale in Australia isn't even close to what you originally said it was. That collapses your entire argument. If you genuinely think Australian businesses aren't taking advantage of that significantly reduced wage scale for teenagers to significantly reduce their labor costs, then it's clear you have not the smallest shred of intellectual honesty.
Now get back to your nice, safe echo chamber -- I understand facts can be uncomfortable.
You could also say the Democrats want to dictate fine-grained detail of toxic waste disposal
I'm sure there's a healthy population of the young and young at heart that feel like they may as well live next to a leaking toxic waste dump if they can't constantly saturate their lines with Netflix and BitTorrent. For the rest of us, that's a super-strained analogy.
Maybe it's Maybelline.
Cute, but you're missing my point. We're talking about people who are supposedly turning down old clothes because they're not fashionable enough. If that's really true, they're operating on a much higher Maslowian tier than people genuinely threatened with starvation.
net neutrality can be described in a single paragraph.
The Democrats don't want a single paragraph, or even a single page. What they're grandstanding to put back in place is 300+ pages of corporate second-guessing and micromanagement.
Fashion trends are accelerating, new clothes are becoming as cheap as used ones, and poor countries are turning their backs on the secondhand trade.
This is fantastic news. If a country is in a position to turn up their collective noses at perfectly serviceable used clothing because it's not new/trendy enough, I think we can take that as an official declaration that they're in fine shape to fend for themselves all the way around.
Cite? I've spent some time looking through Comcast filings and haven't found that anywhere.
Same here. We'll see what he comes back with, but I suspect this has no basis in reality. He's been saying this for a long time, but until looking just now I didn't realize that when he first made the claim it was supposedly Cox admitting to $7/month.
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing.
You say this a lot. Putting aside for now the fact that this would be a very strange sort of statement to make in an SEC filing, as far as I can tell nobody else on the face of the planet appears to be talking about it, which is a bit weird if it's anywhere close to correct. Please provide a link to the specific SEC filing and the exact text you believe constitutes this "admission" so we can evaluate it for ourselves. Thanks.
I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, but in so far as it has become one, it is pretty clear that there's a pretty massive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at play here.
The Democrats want the government to dictate fine-grained details of how bits may and may not be fed down a pipe. The Republicans want to leave more of those decisions in the hands of private industry. IMO these positions are exceptionally consistent with the parties' overall worldviews.
If you want what's left of your privacy, and actual data security preserved, GET RID OF YOUR SMARTPHONE!
Whew -- good thing I just replaced it with a mobile multifunction, n'est ce pas?
Who told you that? They're lying.
This is not even a mildly controversial proposition. See, e.g., here.
Most of the research going on is done in Europe
You're acting as though I said the research itself is happening in the U.S. -- I don't know that one way or the other, and it doesn't matter. All the major pharma companies are multinational corporations, and regardless of where they're domiciled, they pocket premium prices for sales to the U.S., and they factor those expected premium prices into their sales projections, which in turn defines their R&D budget. You're arguing with basic math.
the rest of the civilized world (who pay 1/2 what we do for better results)
The problem with this old tired meme is that Americans' higher prices subsidize the rest of the world's lower prices. If we join the rest of the world and institute our own governmental price fixing, some combination of availability and/or innovation in care will disappear -- for everyone. There is no free lunch, no matter how many Bernie Sanders there are out there sweetly crooning otherwise to people who really really wish it were true.
(And if I'm late to the party and shittier-but-equal services for all is the actual goal, let's just be honest about that.)