Because searching an encrypted database for "gilgongo" isn't trivial. And when passing "gilgongo" to middleware over unencrypted XML, how do you encrypt the individual fields? Because if you send encrypted XML (IPSEC or such) then you'd send the fields inside unencrypted, so the dB on both ends would be unencrypted, or import/export unencrypted.
Not even remotely. HIPAA was about "portability" before "accountability". Last I looked, there had been fines levied for not releasing medical records, but not a single one for releasing them inappropriately. The consultants all lied about the law to drive up their business, and medical practices are conservative about risk, so everyone thought about it as a "security" law, but it was more about access and portability for one's own records, and the penalties for leaks were not the reason or primary goal for the law.
And it's hard to take you seriously when you talk about it, but can't even spell it.
Not true. Google Adsense lets you bid on CPM or CPC, or even CPA, though their internal bid process essentially turns all the various bids into a CPC equivelent to evaluate them. But you can pay Google only for sales from your ads (CPA), or only for impressions (CPM), as well as the basic CPC.
It's too bad that 'piercing the veil' appears to be some kind of taboo in the US.
Yup. The law allows for workers to be punished for their actions as part of a corporation. But it doesn't happen. Most of the rest of the world is not so protective of corporate employees. The real "socialist" ones would find the engineer who wrote the code. Ask him if he'd like to go to jail for a long time, or name the person who ordered him to do it. They'd go up the chain until someone claimed the buck stops with them. That person would get a conviction for fraud and a large fine. Seems like a much better system than the US way.
That makes no sense. By that definition, a corporation doesn't exist. It's not a corporation, it's a group of people. It's not a corporation's money, it's the investor's money.
Market cap will spiral to earnings per share (or some number based on financial performance). The share has an inherent value. 100% of a company that makes $10B profit a year is worth $10B per year. That can't spiral to $0, as when it drops below the "value" someone will buy it up and turn your loss into a profit.
If you own shares of a company that's committing fraud, you should take more interest in the running of it and vote in a board that is interested in the same things you are. If you don't, then you get what you deserve when something like this happens.
VW wouldn't be the first. I remember the Caddy because I had a family member with one. Fraud to game the EPA tests is standard, and every US maker has been caught at it. The Caddy issue is the largest I'd heard of before this, but not the only one.
There doesn't exist a single maker you couldn't make the same claim of. Ford has the Pinto. GM has the Corvair, side-saddle gas tanks in trucks. Chrysler had, well, everything. VW is the largest maker in the world at the moment, it's bound to have some issues in it's ancient and full closet. One example filled with factual errors doesn't make a good case. You should have just stated your opinion and left it at that. "I don't like VW" is something nobody can argue with. "The beatle was a bad car" seems to be a very stupid statement, given it's one of the most successful cars in the history of the universe (as far as we know).
They are designed to be cheap to make and cheap to repair. You are whining about a centuries old engineering problem. Do you seal bearings, increasing their unserviced life by 2, or leave them unsealed, so they have to be "repaired" twice as often. Note, the sealed bearings can't be serviced, so they become disposable. That particular debated has gone on long enough that it's nearly solved, but so many others haven't been solved. For a car designed to be the Model T of the '40s, it was what it was supposed to be.
Your complaints are as idiotic as someone who doesn't buy his tools at the Snap-On truck when it comes to his shop, but goes to Wal-Mart for wrenches, then complains when they break. They weren't "designed" to be unreliable. They were designed to be cheap. It was cheap, and sold many many cars because of it. Your example makes you look dumb, not the Bug.
This has happened before. The cars are 100% legal because they are 100% legal. The company that made them may owe penalties, but the cars have nothing wrong with them. At most, a recall would be made that would make them operate under the parameters they used when tested.
The human mind demands "why". When there is no "why" the mind has greater trouble accepting the event ever happened. So for deleting an inconsequential flier on a board, or duplicating a cistern in a photo of cisterns, there is no "why". But inserting a bus into a busy street, someone could think of a "why". To hide something behind it, or to make the streets look more busy (as done with many movies, including Fury Road).
When the only "why" is "to see if you could spot it" then the why has no real meaning, so the fake will be harder to spot.
I think they stumbled onto something that tells the inner workings of the brain, but not the workings they were looking for. Repeat the test telling someone "This photo was altered to [something]" as the hint, and I think they recognition rate will increase. And I think that if the "why" is pre-shared, an fMRI would show a greater portion of the brain activated for the detection.
Now if only I was independently wealthy, I could fund these more useful studies.
People who sum up their personal ideals into an "our team" vs "their team" menality are all broken. Both Democrats and Republicans are idiots. And assuming that when someone says "those idiots are idiots" necessarily means "those other idiots aren't idiots" makes you an idiot. The proper response is to chuckle and say "yes, they are", as you internalize "as they all are".
For the last time, a cut hair is not "a member" of any species,
You mean for the first time. If human DNA isn't human, then an egg isn't human, nor is a sperm. Then, logically, neither would be the zygote. It's not identifiable as a member of the species by any test other than DNA, and you indicate that a cluster of cells with identifiable DNA is unrelated to whether it's a member of the species, So the definition some use of "first identifiable unique DNA" is thrown out. After that, it's all a grey line. You draw it where you want and act like a complete nutter towards anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion.
Organs and parts of organs are not organisms. An leaf is not an tree, a tail is not a dog, a wing is not a bird.
Ham isn't from a pig, and the blood I gave last week wouldn't test as "human" if someone tested it.
Since you hate answering questions so much, where do you draw the line between "organism" and "not organism", in the context of a single cell with unique DNA? At what point is it an "organism" from your definition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Wikipedia defines it as a "contiguous living system". That would make a mother in her 10th month (well past due date, with a viable fetus) a single organism. The organism inside is not a separate organism because the contiguous living system is the whole of the two.
But I'm sure you reject the definitions found in every dictionary and such. So, since everyone else on the planet is wrong, lets hear your unique definition. That's why I answered your rhetorical question with a question. I expected every word in it was defined by you directly contradicting every dictionary. It seems that I was right in assuming the worst of you.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
First, it was solely clarification. You deliberately used vague words to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief. I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid. Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.
You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.
Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.
And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling. Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.
And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stupid, arguments in support of abortion.
I think you are a liar. Why else would you be so emotionally invested in proving others wrong? If it was simply a dispassionate passion for logic, you'd have answered my question, rather than going off on the "you first" stance, and note, I've answered yours, but you've still failed to answer mine.
If your passion was for logic, and not uterine slavery, you'd not be so emotional. Oh, and you'd not play with your own logical fallacies, like ad hominem, in an attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't share your opinion.
If you DNA test the hair, the answer is "human". So your "logic" is that it's not "human" because it's not complete, even if provably identifiable as human. I guess I'm not human. I have an ACL and an appendix missing. So I'm not "human" because I'm not a complete and whole organism.
No, your moving goalposts where you set the line in the sand of where "organism" starts proves you are lying about your motives. That you refuse to answer my simple question in a clear manner, but imply that you've answered without answering (so you can't be held responsible for your lack of logic and consistency while accusing everyone else of the same faults) indicates you are lying about your motives. Nothing you say rings true.
You fault me for my "logic" but I had, to that point, only asked a question that you didn't like. It asked you to define your views, rather than being a devil's advocate. Devil's advocate is code for "liar". "I don't believe that position, but I'm representing it because I like to piss off people". Again, all back to your intense emotional investment in the topic on the side against anyone who you think would support legalized abortion.
Is your cut hair a member of your mother's species? Asked, but not answered. Will you? Or just launch into more ad hominem? I predict the latter.
The iPhone was also touted as a video-iPod. Two movies is all you can fit on a 16GB phone. For people that use it, 16GB is insufficient. That you don't use it doesn't make it a bad thing.
The problem is that the people paying for the masts and providing the sites don't benefit from them, so they have no incentive to go along with the project.
So this is another case of a poorly written contract and insufficient oversight. No, I'm not going to blame the government, I see this as much (or more) with large corporations. The contract is to build towers. There isn't a cancellation clause for failure to perform (or it's not being exercised). Or a claw-back for delays.
One of the things government does right is roads in Dallas. The new LBJ toll express lanes were done months ahead of schedule. I didn't live there for that, but I did when US-75 was widened, quicker than scheduled, and under budget. They cut payment for lane closures, so they widened a busy 2-lane (each way) urban highway with almost no daytime lane closures (the "cost" of closing a lane at night was lower).
If the person providing the site doesn't benefit, then why aren't they compensated at a reasonable cost? If they simply refuse to cooperate because they think they can extort more money from the builders, then eminent domain (compulsory purchase) should solve that problem.
https://play.google.com/store/... came with my phone. Seems to be fine, though it too chatty for my liking. I'm not sure if it's a speed app that talks about security, or a security app that talks about speed. It seems to mainly work by shutting down background processes. Though it's domination of the running apps to make sure nothing is running, so it extends battery life, takes more battery life than the background apps did. But I haven't really played around with it much, came with the last update, and didn't get in the way too much.
If you have malware, that's cause you (or someone with access to your phone) installed it. Don't do that.
So there exists no browser exploit, no vulnerable apps on the app store, and no other way for your phone to have a problem unless you sideload a "bad" APK? Seems like there are some vulnerabilities you are missing on your list.
In other words voluntarily lock yourself into a walled garden? But isn't one of the biggest advantages of Android the freedom to install anything you want from any place you want?
I'm free to invite anyone into my house I want. Yet, I still lock the doors at night. A voluntary walled garden, every night. Arguably literally. Choosing to be safe is like locking your car doors at the mall. If you lock your car doors when you go shopping, you are a hypocrite. You have the freedom to invite absolutely anyone into your car, so locking it DESTROYs your freedom. Why do you hate freedom?
My wife has smaller hands than you, and she likes my 6s sized android phone better than her 6 sized iPhone 6. She browses and watches, but when she does text, she holds the phone in close with both hands. The pre-6 was easy to type with one thumb holding the phone it one hand. That's less possible with the larger phones. So the rare times of wanting to text while holding something in the other hand will be much harder, but that doesn't come up so often for some people.
It always amazes me how most people say "I wouldn't do that, so nobody else should value that". Different people use it differently. Small hands is irrelevant to the 8" phones. Small hands can use a tablet with ease. It's when someone (of any hand size) finds themselves using a device with on hand regularly, where they want a 4" or smaller screen. But it's not our job to tell others how to use it. As consumers, our only role is to tell Apple how we'd use it, and let them decide whether or not to make something that fits, so we decide whether or not to buy it.
A 6" phone fits easily in my pants, front or back pocket. Though, it is generally more comfortable to take it out when I sit, but I did that with my 4" phone. I even tried for a week with a 7" tablet, and it fit in my back pocket, though stuck out quite far, so it was more cumbersome.
That makes sense, considering that most iPhones are 16GB in size...
What is the size of most iPhones being sold today? I still have an 8GB iPhone running around, though unused. And I've not seen numbers for sizes sold, to see what the most common size is, and what total percentage of phone sales it is.
Nope. Trump is "isolationist" in that he'll tell our allies to go fuck themselves. But when a mess happens, he'll not hesitate to "look decisive" with aggressive military action.
Sadly, I think his foreign policy (when it comes to military) would be quite similar to my ideal. Pull back the armed forces, and deploy when needed. But his diplomatic policy would be nearly the opposite of mine. We don't need to keep so many military on foreign bases. We are spread all over the world planning on invasions of the Middle East, Russia, Indonesia, and other threats and "potential threats". But I can't see Trump trying to get Iran to a negotiating table. Or trying to solve a problem like ISIS.
So you don't answer my clarifying question, but demand I answer yours.
The cells inside the egg are chicken species. But it is not "a chicken" until it hatches. Much like my hair is human species, but is not "a human". I answered your question, now are you going to go back and answer mine you refused to answer?
Why avoid it with so much effort? Your 4 statements to avoid it were longer than any answer would have been, and the answer seems pretty straight forward.
What you're talking about is the Break Even Point - which is the term you need to be using instead of the fucking MBA stated Gross Profit, which it isn't.
Then MBA stated Gross Profit isn't. EBIDTA is the MBA term you are looking for, usually called Gross Profit by those who don't understand economics. As you've proven you don't know.
As an American Tax Payer, I've already suggested that the IRS clear up the Definition of Profit by simply informing those companies stupid enough to call something "Gross Profit" that's what they're tax liabilities are based on.
Well your suggestion causes inflated expenses. Increase expenses to minimize profits. You might as well just tax dividend payments only. As that's the only direct way a large corporation pays out profits.
If you weren't a complete idiot, you should have suggested that the IRS collect payment on corporation's gross income. Cut the rate to 1-2% and tax income, not profit. The tax will be simpler, easier for everyone to understand, more consistently and fairly applied, and revenue neutral (as in the tax on gross income would collect as much for the IRS as the current tax on profit, even at a much lower percentage).
You claim nobody uses the terms like you do. That's correct. Income (is gross income). Earnings is any form of adjusted income or profit. Profit is net profit. There is a continuum between income and profit. Some people call the middle ground different things. You apparently want to use Break Even Point (though nobody else on the planet uses it like you do). And the MBAs you hate so much don't use the terms incorrectly as you state. Maybe that's why you hate them so much. You don't understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does plain text still exist?
Because searching an encrypted database for "gilgongo" isn't trivial. And when passing "gilgongo" to middleware over unencrypted XML, how do you encrypt the individual fields? Because if you send encrypted XML (IPSEC or such) then you'd send the fields inside unencrypted, so the dB on both ends would be unencrypted, or import/export unencrypted.
Makes a mess for migrations and support.
Not even remotely. HIPAA was about "portability" before "accountability". Last I looked, there had been fines levied for not releasing medical records, but not a single one for releasing them inappropriately. The consultants all lied about the law to drive up their business, and medical practices are conservative about risk, so everyone thought about it as a "security" law, but it was more about access and portability for one's own records, and the penalties for leaks were not the reason or primary goal for the law.
And it's hard to take you seriously when you talk about it, but can't even spell it.
Not true. Google Adsense lets you bid on CPM or CPC, or even CPA, though their internal bid process essentially turns all the various bids into a CPC equivelent to evaluate them. But you can pay Google only for sales from your ads (CPA), or only for impressions (CPM), as well as the basic CPC.
No, Slashdot (and just about any other website) gains revenue from clicked ads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You should have at least the smallest clue about something before you correct others on it. CPM is quite common, and requires no clicks.
It's too bad that 'piercing the veil' appears to be some kind of taboo in the US.
Yup. The law allows for workers to be punished for their actions as part of a corporation. But it doesn't happen. Most of the rest of the world is not so protective of corporate employees. The real "socialist" ones would find the engineer who wrote the code. Ask him if he'd like to go to jail for a long time, or name the person who ordered him to do it. They'd go up the chain until someone claimed the buck stops with them. That person would get a conviction for fraud and a large fine. Seems like a much better system than the US way.
That makes no sense. By that definition, a corporation doesn't exist. It's not a corporation, it's a group of people. It's not a corporation's money, it's the investor's money.
Market cap will spiral to earnings per share (or some number based on financial performance). The share has an inherent value. 100% of a company that makes $10B profit a year is worth $10B per year. That can't spiral to $0, as when it drops below the "value" someone will buy it up and turn your loss into a profit.
If you own shares of a company that's committing fraud, you should take more interest in the running of it and vote in a board that is interested in the same things you are. If you don't, then you get what you deserve when something like this happens.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12...
VW wouldn't be the first. I remember the Caddy because I had a family member with one. Fraud to game the EPA tests is standard, and every US maker has been caught at it. The Caddy issue is the largest I'd heard of before this, but not the only one.
There doesn't exist a single maker you couldn't make the same claim of. Ford has the Pinto. GM has the Corvair, side-saddle gas tanks in trucks. Chrysler had, well, everything. VW is the largest maker in the world at the moment, it's bound to have some issues in it's ancient and full closet. One example filled with factual errors doesn't make a good case. You should have just stated your opinion and left it at that. "I don't like VW" is something nobody can argue with. "The beatle was a bad car" seems to be a very stupid statement, given it's one of the most successful cars in the history of the universe (as far as we know).
They are designed to be cheap to make and cheap to repair. You are whining about a centuries old engineering problem. Do you seal bearings, increasing their unserviced life by 2, or leave them unsealed, so they have to be "repaired" twice as often. Note, the sealed bearings can't be serviced, so they become disposable. That particular debated has gone on long enough that it's nearly solved, but so many others haven't been solved. For a car designed to be the Model T of the '40s, it was what it was supposed to be.
Your complaints are as idiotic as someone who doesn't buy his tools at the Snap-On truck when it comes to his shop, but goes to Wal-Mart for wrenches, then complains when they break. They weren't "designed" to be unreliable. They were designed to be cheap. It was cheap, and sold many many cars because of it. Your example makes you look dumb, not the Bug.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12...
This has happened before. The cars are 100% legal because they are 100% legal. The company that made them may owe penalties, but the cars have nothing wrong with them. At most, a recall would be made that would make them operate under the parameters they used when tested.
The human mind demands "why". When there is no "why" the mind has greater trouble accepting the event ever happened. So for deleting an inconsequential flier on a board, or duplicating a cistern in a photo of cisterns, there is no "why". But inserting a bus into a busy street, someone could think of a "why". To hide something behind it, or to make the streets look more busy (as done with many movies, including Fury Road).
When the only "why" is "to see if you could spot it" then the why has no real meaning, so the fake will be harder to spot.
I think they stumbled onto something that tells the inner workings of the brain, but not the workings they were looking for. Repeat the test telling someone "This photo was altered to [something]" as the hint, and I think they recognition rate will increase. And I think that if the "why" is pre-shared, an fMRI would show a greater portion of the brain activated for the detection.
Now if only I was independently wealthy, I could fund these more useful studies.
People who sum up their personal ideals into an "our team" vs "their team" menality are all broken. Both Democrats and Republicans are idiots. And assuming that when someone says "those idiots are idiots" necessarily means "those other idiots aren't idiots" makes you an idiot. The proper response is to chuckle and say "yes, they are", as you internalize "as they all are".
For the last time, a cut hair is not "a member" of any species,
You mean for the first time. If human DNA isn't human, then an egg isn't human, nor is a sperm. Then, logically, neither would be the zygote. It's not identifiable as a member of the species by any test other than DNA, and you indicate that a cluster of cells with identifiable DNA is unrelated to whether it's a member of the species, So the definition some use of "first identifiable unique DNA" is thrown out. After that, it's all a grey line. You draw it where you want and act like a complete nutter towards anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion.
Organs and parts of organs are not organisms. An leaf is not an tree, a tail is not a dog, a wing is not a bird.
Ham isn't from a pig, and the blood I gave last week wouldn't test as "human" if someone tested it.
Since you hate answering questions so much, where do you draw the line between "organism" and "not organism", in the context of a single cell with unique DNA? At what point is it an "organism" from your definition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Wikipedia defines it as a "contiguous living system". That would make a mother in her 10th month (well past due date, with a viable fetus) a single organism. The organism inside is not a separate organism because the contiguous living system is the whole of the two.
But I'm sure you reject the definitions found in every dictionary and such. So, since everyone else on the planet is wrong, lets hear your unique definition. That's why I answered your rhetorical question with a question. I expected every word in it was defined by you directly contradicting every dictionary. It seems that I was right in assuming the worst of you.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
First, it was solely clarification. You deliberately used vague words to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief. I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid. Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.
You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.
Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.
And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling. Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.
And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stupid, arguments in support of abortion.
I think you are a liar. Why else would you be so emotionally invested in proving others wrong? If it was simply a dispassionate passion for logic, you'd have answered my question, rather than going off on the "you first" stance, and note, I've answered yours, but you've still failed to answer mine.
If your passion was for logic, and not uterine slavery, you'd not be so emotional. Oh, and you'd not play with your own logical fallacies, like ad hominem, in an attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't share your opinion.
If you DNA test the hair, the answer is "human". So your "logic" is that it's not "human" because it's not complete, even if provably identifiable as human. I guess I'm not human. I have an ACL and an appendix missing. So I'm not "human" because I'm not a complete and whole organism.
No, your moving goalposts where you set the line in the sand of where "organism" starts proves you are lying about your motives. That you refuse to answer my simple question in a clear manner, but imply that you've answered without answering (so you can't be held responsible for your lack of logic and consistency while accusing everyone else of the same faults) indicates you are lying about your motives. Nothing you say rings true.
You fault me for my "logic" but I had, to that point, only asked a question that you didn't like. It asked you to define your views, rather than being a devil's advocate. Devil's advocate is code for "liar". "I don't believe that position, but I'm representing it because I like to piss off people". Again, all back to your intense emotional investment in the topic on the side against anyone who you think would support legalized abortion.
Is your cut hair a member of your mother's species? Asked, but not answered. Will you? Or just launch into more ad hominem? I predict the latter.
Literally.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
The iPhone was also touted as a video-iPod. Two movies is all you can fit on a 16GB phone. For people that use it, 16GB is insufficient. That you don't use it doesn't make it a bad thing.
The problem is that the people paying for the masts and providing the sites don't benefit from them, so they have no incentive to go along with the project.
So this is another case of a poorly written contract and insufficient oversight. No, I'm not going to blame the government, I see this as much (or more) with large corporations. The contract is to build towers. There isn't a cancellation clause for failure to perform (or it's not being exercised). Or a claw-back for delays.
One of the things government does right is roads in Dallas. The new LBJ toll express lanes were done months ahead of schedule. I didn't live there for that, but I did when US-75 was widened, quicker than scheduled, and under budget. They cut payment for lane closures, so they widened a busy 2-lane (each way) urban highway with almost no daytime lane closures (the "cost" of closing a lane at night was lower).
If the person providing the site doesn't benefit, then why aren't they compensated at a reasonable cost? If they simply refuse to cooperate because they think they can extort more money from the builders, then eminent domain (compulsory purchase) should solve that problem.
https://play.google.com/store/... came with my phone. Seems to be fine, though it too chatty for my liking. I'm not sure if it's a speed app that talks about security, or a security app that talks about speed. It seems to mainly work by shutting down background processes. Though it's domination of the running apps to make sure nothing is running, so it extends battery life, takes more battery life than the background apps did. But I haven't really played around with it much, came with the last update, and didn't get in the way too much.
If you have malware, that's cause you (or someone with access to your phone) installed it. Don't do that.
So there exists no browser exploit, no vulnerable apps on the app store, and no other way for your phone to have a problem unless you sideload a "bad" APK? Seems like there are some vulnerabilities you are missing on your list.
In other words voluntarily lock yourself into a walled garden? But isn't one of the biggest advantages of Android the freedom to install anything you want from any place you want?
I'm free to invite anyone into my house I want. Yet, I still lock the doors at night. A voluntary walled garden, every night. Arguably literally. Choosing to be safe is like locking your car doors at the mall. If you lock your car doors when you go shopping, you are a hypocrite. You have the freedom to invite absolutely anyone into your car, so locking it DESTROYs your freedom. Why do you hate freedom?
My wife has smaller hands than you, and she likes my 6s sized android phone better than her 6 sized iPhone 6. She browses and watches, but when she does text, she holds the phone in close with both hands. The pre-6 was easy to type with one thumb holding the phone it one hand. That's less possible with the larger phones. So the rare times of wanting to text while holding something in the other hand will be much harder, but that doesn't come up so often for some people.
It always amazes me how most people say "I wouldn't do that, so nobody else should value that". Different people use it differently. Small hands is irrelevant to the 8" phones. Small hands can use a tablet with ease. It's when someone (of any hand size) finds themselves using a device with on hand regularly, where they want a 4" or smaller screen. But it's not our job to tell others how to use it. As consumers, our only role is to tell Apple how we'd use it, and let them decide whether or not to make something that fits, so we decide whether or not to buy it.
A 6" phone fits easily in my pants, front or back pocket. Though, it is generally more comfortable to take it out when I sit, but I did that with my 4" phone. I even tried for a week with a 7" tablet, and it fit in my back pocket, though stuck out quite far, so it was more cumbersome.
That makes sense, considering that most iPhones are 16GB in size...
What is the size of most iPhones being sold today? I still have an 8GB iPhone running around, though unused. And I've not seen numbers for sizes sold, to see what the most common size is, and what total percentage of phone sales it is.
Nope. Trump is "isolationist" in that he'll tell our allies to go fuck themselves. But when a mess happens, he'll not hesitate to "look decisive" with aggressive military action.
Sadly, I think his foreign policy (when it comes to military) would be quite similar to my ideal. Pull back the armed forces, and deploy when needed. But his diplomatic policy would be nearly the opposite of mine. We don't need to keep so many military on foreign bases. We are spread all over the world planning on invasions of the Middle East, Russia, Indonesia, and other threats and "potential threats". But I can't see Trump trying to get Iran to a negotiating table. Or trying to solve a problem like ISIS.
So you don't answer my clarifying question, but demand I answer yours.
The cells inside the egg are chicken species. But it is not "a chicken" until it hatches. Much like my hair is human species, but is not "a human". I answered your question, now are you going to go back and answer mine you refused to answer?
Why avoid it with so much effort? Your 4 statements to avoid it were longer than any answer would have been, and the answer seems pretty straight forward.
What you're talking about is the Break Even Point - which is the term you need to be using instead of the fucking MBA stated Gross Profit, which it isn't.
Then MBA stated Gross Profit isn't. EBIDTA is the MBA term you are looking for, usually called Gross Profit by those who don't understand economics. As you've proven you don't know.
As an American Tax Payer, I've already suggested that the IRS clear up the Definition of Profit by simply informing those companies stupid enough to call something "Gross Profit" that's what they're tax liabilities are based on.
Well your suggestion causes inflated expenses. Increase expenses to minimize profits. You might as well just tax dividend payments only. As that's the only direct way a large corporation pays out profits.
If you weren't a complete idiot, you should have suggested that the IRS collect payment on corporation's gross income. Cut the rate to 1-2% and tax income, not profit. The tax will be simpler, easier for everyone to understand, more consistently and fairly applied, and revenue neutral (as in the tax on gross income would collect as much for the IRS as the current tax on profit, even at a much lower percentage).
You claim nobody uses the terms like you do. That's correct. Income (is gross income). Earnings is any form of adjusted income or profit. Profit is net profit. There is a continuum between income and profit. Some people call the middle ground different things. You apparently want to use Break Even Point (though nobody else on the planet uses it like you do). And the MBAs you hate so much don't use the terms incorrectly as you state. Maybe that's why you hate them so much. You don't understand it.