The real estate sites list that as "in" Boston, but it looks more like it's 10 miles away. In Boston, there are the apartments for sale, but nothing I saw that was a "house" for that range. Wait for a do-up?
It's cheaper to buy than rent. The tax breaks on ownership are better if you live there than if you don't. So anyone who can afford to rent can afford to buy.
That's not true in many countries, though. And if you don't deduct enough to justify itemization, then the difference is gone, but it's still not cheaper to rent than buy, unless the owner is renting at a "loss" (loss compared to the cost of capital, not actual loss).
But many rent for a "loss" because they can take the cashflow loss for the capital gain. But in that case, you'd still be better off buying than renting.
Yes, but the reports (short on facts) make it sound like he's spending $200M cash to develop his own land. If he's buying land from himself at $180M and spending $20M building 200 houses, then that's a different thing. Perhaps it's possible that "gifting" the land to a foundation gave him a good tax break, but still 100% control of the development.
Funnily, this happened in the USA, so the USA definitions of ultralight would apply. The media coverage called it an ultralight, though based on the charges, that could have been a factual error.
If you missed the discussion: quite a few people on/. debated whether that copter was a ultra light.
I didn't miss the discussion. I noted the reports called the contraption an ultralight. You argued about the US definition being different than the Australia definition. Which, for an event in the US with a small aircraft, is irrelevant. That was obviously false, and stupid, so now you are attacking others so you can "win" an argument related to this, so you feel better. Do you need a hug?
You don't make a dividend off it. You meant (I presume) capital gain. A dividend is a periodic cash payment out without touching the principle.
It's a "loss" for most definitions. He'd earn $10M a year putting the $200M into a bank account, but will end up with less than that charging rent. The "low income" housing will cost more than $1M per dwelling. You won't be getting too many "low income" people buying for that.
It's hard to crunch the numbers on this and find *any* way this will be profitable. Unless he has something else in there unstated, like some local commercial space in those 200+ houses that will be more profitable, leasing to, or owning a gas station, grocery, and other shops. Because $1M per house development cost for "cheap" housing on "free" land (he already owns, and isn't counted, from what I can tell) is about $700k too much. I've seen $40k houses for 5-star Energy rated 3-bedroom housing. Modular homes, plant anywhere. So there has to be something else going on, or he's planning on renting out $1M McMansions at a loss.
For Uber, the surge pricing applied on all the major holidays last Christmas season. They may be dead times for a full shift, but the number of people taking a taxi out and back in the evening is large. So the surge counts at night.
Oh, then I'm likely deactivated now. And I'll have to do one every 6 months. Thanks for the info. I may just let it stay deactivated, I didn't do it over the last holiday period, so likely never will.
They do things like that for the first one. Once an evidence is on the "approved" list, you aren't allowed to question it. It's considered a waste of the court's time to have someone fighting a speeding ticket call in 10 experts on RADAR to impeach the speed gun, every time someone with enough money gets a speeding ticket. You can question the use that once, but not the underlying tech. It's illegal to question it (your jurisdiction may vary).
Conviction is more important than truth. The adversarial system is the problem. The poor person in the equation doesn't get fair treatment. Someone accused of something is presumed guilty until proven otherwise. This wasn't the intention, but it is the reality. If you are on trial, the jury assumes you are guilty, or they wouldn't be wasting everyone's time with a trial. Go on, ask people what they think about people who say they weren't speeding, and the only "proof" of their "crime" is a cop saying they did it. Everyone assumes the person is guilty. "why would the cop lie" "The guy did it, and is lying to try to get out of it"
The criminal DUI trial I was a juror for went pretty much like that.
I remember when I held stocks that were printed, and shipped when you bought one. But that's not "stock". That's a receipt representing the share held, which is 100% incorporeal. If I presented a receipt for buying a unicorn, that doesn't make a unicorn real, just like a receipt for a share in a company (generally called a stock certificate), doesn't make the underlying idea or ownership any more real/physical.
I've signed up as an Uber driver, but haven't ever taken a fare. It's free and no-commitment to sign up. I was thinking that I'd work a few hours on holidays and take advantage of the surge pricing, but have always had something better to do at those times. But if a natural disaster hits, I'm ready to profiteer.
Yes, the scale shows that those in (or near) "normal/ideal" are better off than those over or under weight. No doctor ever indicated that underweight was good. That's something that the media asserts.
SAM would have a better chance than air-to-air would have. A jet would be too high and too fast to pick him out of the ground clutter, but from the ground, it's easier to see it against the sky. But even hitting him with a direct hit from a missile, regardless of where it was fired from, would likely do more damage to DC than anything he could do with his aircraft, had he been malicious.
The school may have a claim against Pearson, since they delivered shoddy, half-ass work. The school has no claims against Apple, since Apple supplied a device not designed to do what the school wanted, and the school intended to extend it with Pearson's product.
Funny, given how the school contracted with Apple for the Apple+Pearson solution. The school paid Apple and contracted with Apple. Pearson was a sub-contractor for Apple. RTFA. They have a claim against Apple only, but not Pearson.
A comment in reply to the comment you refer to notes that accessories, warranty, and other costs were included such that the negotiated price was *below* retail. Apple isn't big on discounts.
The Apple's inherently closed garden makes administration easier. Apple includes enterprise management functions that are missing from Android. And Last I was in a store, the Note was not cheaper than the iPad.
The guy in charge was a former exec at Pearson, and probably broke the law pushing his ex-employer's flawed "solution."
Not for Apple. The guys who buy them in orders of 10,000 pay 5% off retail, and when they ask for 10% off retail, Apple refuses the sale and block all future business with them. I've seen it happen (though the percentages were changed so I don't violate any NDAs).
Why should I test when I have an ironclad clause in the contract? Oh, you mean they were calling the school's bluff over expecting the contract to be followed? If it doesn't work, and you say it does, and you take my money over it, that's fraud. Caveat emptor doesn't really apply to fraud.
Procurement is to get the "best price" for what management tells them to get. If management asks for 1000 #2 pencils, procurement isn't there to see if they really want #4 pencils.
a special software device (thats not a firewall!) that acts as a firewall
A firewall is a special software device. There are lots of Linux firewalls out there and other purely software firewalls. Aside from protecting against electrical attacks, there is little that can be done to a software firewall that will be different from what can be done to a software firewall. I remember cracking open a Cisco PIX and seeing a bog-standard Intel wireless card plugged into the motherboard that was running an Intel Pentium CPU. But that relatively-standard PC is called a "hardware firewall" by most (and by "most" I mean "all", except for those who would lie to try to prove a point on Slashdot).
Also he seems to think that engines 'breath' air, and that the air inside the cabin of an airliner is not at all isolated from the air that goes into the engines.
"Breathe" The process to take in and expel air.
How is that not what an engine does? And he never said the air in the cabin was not isolated from the engines, but that stating to physically close networks that run over similar protocols are inherently connectable is silly, as silly as saying that a human can hack an engine while strapped into a seat because both the human and the engine take in and expel air.
The reality of it is, what the GAO said IS TRUE.
Yes, the useless GAO report says that "no security is 100%". There is no assessment of risk, recommended changes, or other useful statements being reported from the GAO report. Just FUD.
Or be polite as I am and: simply explain stuff to the not knowing.
I'm simply explaining to the people that you don't know what you are talking about. I did so politely. You took offense because I was explaining how you are an idiot. I have a pilot license. I know how these things work. I've seen the news report it using the word "ultralight" http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Have you seen any stating it isn't? No? Then you are guessing in direct opposition to the facts reported, in order to make yourself feel smarter by finding something to argue about that isn't actually a point of interest. Good for you. I hope you feel better, and that this makes up for all the times you were piked on in school. Now sit down, be quiet, and let the adults discuss the actual facts of the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
If broadcast TV were to die to internet TV, we would be left with content for the ones that can afford it and nothing for the ones who can't.
How is that any different from today?
http://www.newenglandpremiere....
The real estate sites list that as "in" Boston, but it looks more like it's 10 miles away. In Boston, there are the apartments for sale, but nothing I saw that was a "house" for that range. Wait for a do-up?
It's cheaper to buy than rent. The tax breaks on ownership are better if you live there than if you don't. So anyone who can afford to rent can afford to buy.
That's not true in many countries, though. And if you don't deduct enough to justify itemization, then the difference is gone, but it's still not cheaper to rent than buy, unless the owner is renting at a "loss" (loss compared to the cost of capital, not actual loss).
But many rent for a "loss" because they can take the cashflow loss for the capital gain. But in that case, you'd still be better off buying than renting.
Yes, but the reports (short on facts) make it sound like he's spending $200M cash to develop his own land. If he's buying land from himself at $180M and spending $20M building 200 houses, then that's a different thing. Perhaps it's possible that "gifting" the land to a foundation gave him a good tax break, but still 100% control of the development.
If you missed the discussion: quite a few people on /. debated whether that copter was a ultra light.
I didn't miss the discussion. I noted the reports called the contraption an ultralight. You argued about the US definition being different than the Australia definition. Which, for an event in the US with a small aircraft, is irrelevant. That was obviously false, and stupid, so now you are attacking others so you can "win" an argument related to this, so you feel better. Do you need a hug?
You don't make a dividend off it. You meant (I presume) capital gain. A dividend is a periodic cash payment out without touching the principle.
It's a "loss" for most definitions. He'd earn $10M a year putting the $200M into a bank account, but will end up with less than that charging rent. The "low income" housing will cost more than $1M per dwelling. You won't be getting too many "low income" people buying for that.
It's hard to crunch the numbers on this and find *any* way this will be profitable. Unless he has something else in there unstated, like some local commercial space in those 200+ houses that will be more profitable, leasing to, or owning a gas station, grocery, and other shops. Because $1M per house development cost for "cheap" housing on "free" land (he already owns, and isn't counted, from what I can tell) is about $700k too much. I've seen $40k houses for 5-star Energy rated 3-bedroom housing. Modular homes, plant anywhere. So there has to be something else going on, or he's planning on renting out $1M McMansions at a loss.
For Uber, the surge pricing applied on all the major holidays last Christmas season. They may be dead times for a full shift, but the number of people taking a taxi out and back in the evening is large. So the surge counts at night.
Oh, then I'm likely deactivated now. And I'll have to do one every 6 months. Thanks for the info. I may just let it stay deactivated, I didn't do it over the last holiday period, so likely never will.
They do things like that for the first one. Once an evidence is on the "approved" list, you aren't allowed to question it. It's considered a waste of the court's time to have someone fighting a speeding ticket call in 10 experts on RADAR to impeach the speed gun, every time someone with enough money gets a speeding ticket. You can question the use that once, but not the underlying tech. It's illegal to question it (your jurisdiction may vary).
Conviction is more important than truth. The adversarial system is the problem. The poor person in the equation doesn't get fair treatment. Someone accused of something is presumed guilty until proven otherwise. This wasn't the intention, but it is the reality. If you are on trial, the jury assumes you are guilty, or they wouldn't be wasting everyone's time with a trial. Go on, ask people what they think about people who say they weren't speeding, and the only "proof" of their "crime" is a cop saying they did it. Everyone assumes the person is guilty. "why would the cop lie" "The guy did it, and is lying to try to get out of it"
The criminal DUI trial I was a juror for went pretty much like that.
He was an illegal alien anyway.
One would think that truth leads to justice. So they aren't exclusive, but overlapping.
I remember when I held stocks that were printed, and shipped when you bought one. But that's not "stock". That's a receipt representing the share held, which is 100% incorporeal. If I presented a receipt for buying a unicorn, that doesn't make a unicorn real, just like a receipt for a share in a company (generally called a stock certificate), doesn't make the underlying idea or ownership any more real/physical.
I've signed up as an Uber driver, but haven't ever taken a fare. It's free and no-commitment to sign up. I was thinking that I'd work a few hours on holidays and take advantage of the surge pricing, but have always had something better to do at those times. But if a natural disaster hits, I'm ready to profiteer.
Yes, the scale shows that those in (or near) "normal/ideal" are better off than those over or under weight. No doctor ever indicated that underweight was good. That's something that the media asserts.
SAM would have a better chance than air-to-air would have. A jet would be too high and too fast to pick him out of the ground clutter, but from the ground, it's easier to see it against the sky. But even hitting him with a direct hit from a missile, regardless of where it was fired from, would likely do more damage to DC than anything he could do with his aircraft, had he been malicious.
The school may have a claim against Pearson, since they delivered shoddy, half-ass work. The school has no claims against Apple, since Apple supplied a device not designed to do what the school wanted, and the school intended to extend it with Pearson's product.
Funny, given how the school contracted with Apple for the Apple+Pearson solution. The school paid Apple and contracted with Apple. Pearson was a sub-contractor for Apple. RTFA. They have a claim against Apple only, but not Pearson.
A comment in reply to the comment you refer to notes that accessories, warranty, and other costs were included such that the negotiated price was *below* retail. Apple isn't big on discounts.
The Apple's inherently closed garden makes administration easier. Apple includes enterprise management functions that are missing from Android. And Last I was in a store, the Note was not cheaper than the iPad.
The guy in charge was a former exec at Pearson, and probably broke the law pushing his ex-employer's flawed "solution."
Not for Apple. The guys who buy them in orders of 10,000 pay 5% off retail, and when they ask for 10% off retail, Apple refuses the sale and block all future business with them. I've seen it happen (though the percentages were changed so I don't violate any NDAs).
Why should I test when I have an ironclad clause in the contract? Oh, you mean they were calling the school's bluff over expecting the contract to be followed? If it doesn't work, and you say it does, and you take my money over it, that's fraud. Caveat emptor doesn't really apply to fraud.
Procurement is to get the "best price" for what management tells them to get. If management asks for 1000 #2 pencils, procurement isn't there to see if they really want #4 pencils.
a special software device (thats not a firewall!) that acts as a firewall
A firewall is a special software device. There are lots of Linux firewalls out there and other purely software firewalls. Aside from protecting against electrical attacks, there is little that can be done to a software firewall that will be different from what can be done to a software firewall. I remember cracking open a Cisco PIX and seeing a bog-standard Intel wireless card plugged into the motherboard that was running an Intel Pentium CPU. But that relatively-standard PC is called a "hardware firewall" by most (and by "most" I mean "all", except for those who would lie to try to prove a point on Slashdot).
Also he seems to think that engines 'breath' air, and that the air inside the cabin of an airliner is not at all isolated from the air that goes into the engines.
"Breathe" The process to take in and expel air.
How is that not what an engine does? And he never said the air in the cabin was not isolated from the engines, but that stating to physically close networks that run over similar protocols are inherently connectable is silly, as silly as saying that a human can hack an engine while strapped into a seat because both the human and the engine take in and expel air.
The reality of it is, what the GAO said IS TRUE.
Yes, the useless GAO report says that "no security is 100%". There is no assessment of risk, recommended changes, or other useful statements being reported from the GAO report. Just FUD.
Or be polite as I am and: simply explain stuff to the not knowing.
I'm simply explaining to the people that you don't know what you are talking about. I did so politely. You took offense because I was explaining how you are an idiot. I have a pilot license. I know how these things work. I've seen the news report it using the word "ultralight" http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Have you seen any stating it isn't? No? Then you are guessing in direct opposition to the facts reported, in order to make yourself feel smarter by finding something to argue about that isn't actually a point of interest. Good for you. I hope you feel better, and that this makes up for all the times you were piked on in school. Now sit down, be quiet, and let the adults discuss the actual facts of the matter.
Best Regards
If only there were some meaning to that date which would explain why such stunts are more common on that date.