What if someone else named Ron Paul wanted the domain? Wouldn't he have as much claim to it as the famous Ron Paul does?
If you want to match the user's expectations, then no. I'm not proposing an actual solution, but the goal is to bring up the websites the user is looking for. Maybe the whole domain name system isn't the right approach at all.
Our domain name system is totally fucked. If I want to go to Ron Paul's website of course I will try RonPaul.com, and I certainly don't want to go to some scammer's website when I type in that address. The system is broken. We didn't build it to serve the interests of some millionaire scammers, so why are we tolerating this nonsense. Just because we don't like Ron Paul? This is insane.
Experts fear that humanity may be precipitating a return to such conditions — except this time, billions of people are in harm’s way.
Are climate scientists really the best people to decide what to go about global climate change? They study the effects and may be able to predict things like rise in temperature, oven levels, ocean acidity and things like that, but they only solution they seem to propose is that we stop emitting carbon dioxide. Isn't it possible that other lifestyle changes could mitigate the effects and cause fewer disruptions than turning away from our primary energy source? Even if we do nothing, it's not likely that people will simply stay in areas and drown while the ocean levels rise.
I've never met anyone with this complaint. I suspect that people who wan't a PC are choosing to buy those, and not iPads.
The problem is not the keyboard. It's been a long time since I've used a computer with fewer than two screens to do any real work. A tablet cold never be large enough to meet my work related needs, but small enough to be usable as a tablet, so there's no sense trying to find compromise between the two.
You have only explained the need for Federal oversight (and given an unnecessary explanation of the duties of air traffic controllers). You have failed to explain why this job can not be paid for by fees rather than taxes, which is all I was asking.
It's bullshit to say "we can't afford it so we're going to delay a bunch of flights." Airlines already have to pay fees to use airports, so of course they can pay for air traffic controllers as well. This is just a show the federal government is putting on because the want to show how "essential" all the things they do are.
The vast majority of all environmental compliance work is done by the polluters themselves. Inspectors just (sometimes) check over their work. Also, preventing crashes is already a serious priority for airlines (for reasons which should be obvious). They already employ the pilots and the maintenance crews, and those people have just as much responsibility preventing crashes as air traffic controllers. Even if I can't convince you that the people using airports should be the ones paying for them, you should still be able to see that the federal government should not be paying for it.
The EPA is tasked with managing the air quality of the entire nation, and yet they don't own all the smokestacks, or pay for all the pollution control equipment and personnel monitoring air quality at factories.
No, the net effect is not zero. Think of it this way, if there were a company that made $0, but had $150B in the bank, what would that company be worth to investors? It would not be worth $150B. Think of it another way, what kind of return do investors expect for their money? If you believe that apple's cash is added directly on top of their value, that means their value minus cash is $230B. On a profit of $45B, that's a P/E ratio of just 5! That would be an incredibly good investment, but it's not because money in apple's bank account isn't worth as much to an investor as money in his own bank account. So if apple can reduce the number of shares, while also reducing their cash, that's a net benefit to their (remaining) investors.
A single share in Apple is going to cost a fortune, the same shareholder value will be divided by significant less stock.
Is a company buying back 1/6 of their stock going to result in shares costing "a fortune" or "significant less stock"? No. So you are the one who fails to understand the context, not me.
The problem is you're assuming that the money in Apple's bank account is as valuable to an investor as the money in their own bank account, but this is not really the case.
Repurchasing stock is meant to increase shareholder value, raising the dividend is meant to do the same. Apple investors have been asking when they will get to see some of the money Apple's been making. This is all meant to keep their investors happy.
What else are they supposed to do with it? Selling hardware at a loss is always a loosing proposition, and there's no way you can spend that amount of money efficiently on R&D. Their only options, really, are sitting on it or giving it to their investors.
The thing is that since most gun owners will never use their gun to kill anyone, it's not reasonable to restrict access to guns. Many people do not see that guns have any social value. Thats fine if you see it that way. But that doesn't mean you should be trying to take away everyone else's guns in a misguided attempt to prevent up to 30,000 deaths a year.
It's good to look at the war on drugs for a parallel. We were told it was a major health crisis, and isolated incidents of people on drugs doing crazy terrible things essentially caused a moral panic and tough new restrictions in individual liberties. 30 years later (or 100 years, depending on when you say this trend started) you see families having their children taken away and mandatory 20 year prison sentences because a couple parents were caught with a small amount of pot. Do we really want to see a situation where an adult with an unregistered firearm will face prison time even though the never used the gun to commit a crime? The cure is worse than the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to match the user's expectations, then no. I'm not proposing an actual solution, but the goal is to bring up the websites the user is looking for. Maybe the whole domain name system isn't the right approach at all.
I'm sure this is a real thing someone actually did and not just a poor photoshop someone did to try to increase the traffic to their blog.
Our domain name system is totally fucked. If I want to go to Ron Paul's website of course I will try RonPaul.com, and I certainly don't want to go to some scammer's website when I type in that address. The system is broken. We didn't build it to serve the interests of some millionaire scammers, so why are we tolerating this nonsense. Just because we don't like Ron Paul? This is insane.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now? Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with terms of service.
There's more in milk than just fat. Reconstituted nonfat milk is only about 90% water by weight.
Are climate scientists really the best people to decide what to go about global climate change? They study the effects and may be able to predict things like rise in temperature, oven levels, ocean acidity and things like that, but they only solution they seem to propose is that we stop emitting carbon dioxide. Isn't it possible that other lifestyle changes could mitigate the effects and cause fewer disruptions than turning away from our primary energy source? Even if we do nothing, it's not likely that people will simply stay in areas and drown while the ocean levels rise.
As long as there are still polar ice sheets, the ice age hasn't ended.
I've never met anyone with this complaint. I suspect that people who wan't a PC are choosing to buy those, and not iPads.
The problem is not the keyboard. It's been a long time since I've used a computer with fewer than two screens to do any real work. A tablet cold never be large enough to meet my work related needs, but small enough to be usable as a tablet, so there's no sense trying to find compromise between the two.
You have only explained the need for Federal oversight (and given an unnecessary explanation of the duties of air traffic controllers). You have failed to explain why this job can not be paid for by fees rather than taxes, which is all I was asking.
It's bullshit to say "we can't afford it so we're going to delay a bunch of flights." Airlines already have to pay fees to use airports, so of course they can pay for air traffic controllers as well. This is just a show the federal government is putting on because the want to show how "essential" all the things they do are.
The vast majority of all environmental compliance work is done by the polluters themselves. Inspectors just (sometimes) check over their work. Also, preventing crashes is already a serious priority for airlines (for reasons which should be obvious). They already employ the pilots and the maintenance crews, and those people have just as much responsibility preventing crashes as air traffic controllers. Even if I can't convince you that the people using airports should be the ones paying for them, you should still be able to see that the federal government should not be paying for it.
The EPA is tasked with managing the air quality of the entire nation, and yet they don't own all the smokestacks, or pay for all the pollution control equipment and personnel monitoring air quality at factories.
No, the net effect is not zero. Think of it this way, if there were a company that made $0, but had $150B in the bank, what would that company be worth to investors? It would not be worth $150B. Think of it another way, what kind of return do investors expect for their money? If you believe that apple's cash is added directly on top of their value, that means their value minus cash is $230B. On a profit of $45B, that's a P/E ratio of just 5! That would be an incredibly good investment, but it's not because money in apple's bank account isn't worth as much to an investor as money in his own bank account. So if apple can reduce the number of shares, while also reducing their cash, that's a net benefit to their (remaining) investors.
Shouldn't this just be added to your ticket price? I don't see why the Federal government should be paying anything to keep local airports open.
Ok, but this was the context:
Is a company buying back 1/6 of their stock going to result in shares costing "a fortune" or "significant less stock"? No. So you are the one who fails to understand the context, not me.
The problem is you're assuming that the money in Apple's bank account is as valuable to an investor as the money in their own bank account, but this is not really the case.
nevertheless, 1/6 is a small fraction
$60 Billion is only a small fraction of the company's overall value.
If the company repurchases its stock, the shares go away, thereby increasing the value of the remaining shares.
Repurchasing stock is meant to increase shareholder value, raising the dividend is meant to do the same. Apple investors have been asking when they will get to see some of the money Apple's been making. This is all meant to keep their investors happy.
What else are they supposed to do with it? Selling hardware at a loss is always a loosing proposition, and there's no way you can spend that amount of money efficiently on R&D. Their only options, really, are sitting on it or giving it to their investors.
Ever heard of Quebec?
Nope. America can refer to either, but only one has a French speaking nation in the north.
Most south-American nations speak Spanish. I think you're confusing the US with America.
Isn't it a little late for a public comment period?
The thing is that since most gun owners will never use their gun to kill anyone, it's not reasonable to restrict access to guns. Many people do not see that guns have any social value. Thats fine if you see it that way. But that doesn't mean you should be trying to take away everyone else's guns in a misguided attempt to prevent up to 30,000 deaths a year.
It's good to look at the war on drugs for a parallel. We were told it was a major health crisis, and isolated incidents of people on drugs doing crazy terrible things essentially caused a moral panic and tough new restrictions in individual liberties. 30 years later (or 100 years, depending on when you say this trend started) you see families having their children taken away and mandatory 20 year prison sentences because a couple parents were caught with a small amount of pot. Do we really want to see a situation where an adult with an unregistered firearm will face prison time even though the never used the gun to commit a crime? The cure is worse than the disease.