Agustus

What kind of land-use policy are you proposing and how will it be kept out of the hands of politicians who abuse it for their own personal gain?

They do.

In all of their items they say: We will share your data with qualified partners.

Could you detail how you chose Freedome for your VPN?

We tried to do that, but they set up their own servers, create Gmail accounts to be off FOIA, or switch over to off the record instant messenger.

Marissa Mayer has done some things to try and right the ship initially.

1. Reduce flex time or work from home: The logic on doing this was questioned at the time, but working with your colleagues in a confined space has proven to be beneficial (Pixar, Yahoo, almost any start up)

2. Developing child care policies that included having the kid be close to her (or this could be Marissa Mayer).

However, she allowed herself to become a larger than Yahoo personality. How many articles were about her describing her life, things she did, she was promoting her brand, not that of Yahoo. She then fell into the acquisition trap of getting Tumblr.

That is what insurance is for, the unforeseen instances in your life. You may pay out what appears to be a significant sum, but what if something happens to you? Life insurance should be something people think about.

1. Student loans: There was a story floating around of how a family co-signed on loans for a child and then were on the hook for said child when they passed away.

2. Family: If you have a kid, get life insurance. You should have the ability to leave the living with a sum of money to ease the burden of your absence. This means the loss of income and life adjusting to a one-parent family, not meaning that there is a pile of money to blow.

Do not say it is not affordable, grab a term policy that gets you to 65 and then be comfortable knowing that you have one less thing to think about.

For those who claim it is too expensive, a million dollar , 30 year term-policy for non-smokers is as follows:

---------------------------------

| Age | Sex | Monthly Cost |

---------------------------------

| 25 | Male | $55 |

| 35 | Male | $66 |

| 45 | Male | $160 |

---------------------------------

| 25 | Female | $45 |

| 35 | Female | $55 |

| 45 | Female | $120 |

---------------------------------

I am using this as a public service announcement, get life insurance.

The title of this article should be Hacking Calculors, part 2: Who needs fingers?

The emotional roller coaster I just went on of:

"Did I miss the release of Calculords 2?"

"No... I am not that out of it."

<click>

"Awww... Punctuation got me again."

The way this is set up means that the content creator has no idea how funding works.

1. Toll revenue goes to toll facilities. Private public partnerships (PPP's) need to be repaid and the tolls collected go directly to the repayment of the bonds, maintenance, and general operations.

2. Transit siphons monies away from the use tax. Transit exists only because of the user tax. While people see autos as bad, they fund the transit that provides movement for poor individuals. I am okay with this.

3. State and local roads is oddly worded in this phrase and brings a warning to my periphery review. Most states have amendments and/charters that require fuel funds to be allocated to the roadways, Wisconsin (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/fueltaxes.htm), Florida, and a number of others that do not take money from other sources. In fact in Florida, the highway funds are raided yearly to fill in budget gaps.

The best I can come up with on how this chart was made to get the 50% concept is that FHWA provides matching funds for projects, the reason is that they want to provide a carrot to meet federally required mandates, such as interstates and state roads on the National Highway System. If you kick in these monies, which is free money, then you can get there. However, this is an advocacy program.

One last note. The writing is on the wall for the gas tax long term. The federal level is already having a shortfall in revenue because of the CAFE standards increase. This is why states like Oregon are trying out the Vehicle Miles Traveled tax, because they need to switch out how the roadways are paid for.

The park is not part of infrastructure. It is a perk that the government decided to be responsible for that is a vestige of urbanized planners taking cues from New York and Philadelphia. Your street is part of a system that was put in place through the urban planners and is probably maintained by the municipality, if you would like to volunteer to not have them maintain it, you can always ask them to.

* Streets are paid for in the United States through the gas taxes collected from the distribution of fuels. It is a user tax.

* Water and electricity are maintained and run by utilities through their use rates. I will pre-empt the discourse and note that water is heavily subsidized by the government and creates weird incentives (I am looking at you Arizona with your green lawns).

* Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements are subsidized by the gas tax. In this case, your statement would be true.

How is suburban infrastructure heavily subsidized?

This is the short term approach that John Oliver puts forward. This is not a year's development, this has been the result of 16 years of Chavez / Maduro policies.

The socialistic / communistic populist rhetoric used by Chavez is what allowed him into office.

The socialist / communist people who elected him created the monster that he became, so those who wanted the platform elected and in his mind instilled his beliefs as "the will of the people" that we hear so much from those who are marginally elected.

No one ever wants to elect a dictator, however, the requirements of a socialist / communist leader lends itself much more to developing one when one utters: "It is the will of the people" to supersede the property rights of others.

This.

I was going to sign the petition and was perfectly happy until I read the fine print for who was going to get a license.

The general public was not going to be able to commercially grow, only 22 (if I remember) growers were going to be able to sell it.

No.

I John Oliver'ed my response to avoid delving into this more, but here is the cause and effects of the Venezuela issue.

1. Chavez was elected in 1999 and utilized the OPEC cartel to decrease production and drive up the price. Utilizing the high prices, he gave away every socialist program that his increased oil prices could deliver.

2. When the socialist programs had to have more cash, Chavez muscled in on the oil producers and told them to find more revenue or else they would nationalize the oil rigs. Companies said there was no money unless operation and maintenance costs were foregone, and they would not undersign that so Chavez nationalized them (property right strike across the bow). This was done through the enabling law which ultimately what started the erosion of the rights.

3. As companies saw that profits could not be returned, they started to get the heck out of Dodge. Tariffs and other crazy price increasing measures were instituted until prices became very high. The government did the next property right erosion by controlling prices on goods. Black market took over to provide goods at real rates because the governments rates could not be met.

4. Any industry that was making a profit was derided in public speeches.

5. Foreign investors avoided investing in the housing market as they saw newly built properties nationalized. The government did not even pay the investors a compensatory fee!

The oil is price is an aside contributor, but when you do not respect property rights, say goodbye to anyone wanting to invest in you.

His interpretation of the Venezuelan crisis. He pointed to the price of oil driving the issue. Nowhere did he mention the crazy socialist/populist programs that Chavez and his successor Maduro.

The main problem in Venezuela is the erosion of property rights. Nowhere in the report was this mentioned.

Absolutely. Google is far and away what I fall back to when I need to really find something. That being said, I use Bing and DDG as my defaults to see if I get good enough results.

Google is on track, albeit slowly, to the AltaVista destination.

When in 1999, before the first collapse, the competitors to Google were inundating users with in-result ads, crazy load times and odd results. This was pushed by the stock's need to show constant revenue growth.

Google now is adding more ads, configuring the ads in-line to increase clicks (yes, they are 65% relevant), integrating an obtuse implementation within Maps, and so forth.

DuckDuckGo becomes more viable each day as an alternative.

* Could you give me more information on how you sourced your cartons?

* What does LTV mean?

* What does USP mean?

Gas taxes go to federal, state, and local (county level).

Space and gas taxes.

Europeans do not have significant amounts of space to build housing supplies, that's why space/m^2 is much higher than here in the states, witness San Fancisco's trolley system that caused suburbanization (or at least enabled it).

Gas Taxes in Europe are double than here in the states[1], US gas is taxed at relatively low rates when compared to other nations. Used as a user tax here in the states, its predominant purpose is to fund roadway improvements and maintenance; however, it is used to fund transit and other items. In Europe, the higher gas tax is used to drive (good one Agustus) less travel and subsidize rail lines.

The trams / streetcars in Europe work because the suburbanization was stopped by high government taxes and forces the populous to pay more for a lower comparable standard of living.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_tax_in_OECD_countrie...

*Edited for why, if you disagree, please provide an alternative opinion. I have taken the time to provide a discourse, if a downvote to it is necessary, then please provide a reason.

I am so immune to background images, and did not notice it at first, but the first link's background is NSFW.

This is a conspiracy theory. The other part of the story is that if the streetcars were a better investment, General Motors would not have done this. Streetcars are slow, inefficient, and require rail lines to move about. So, if these companies realized the assets they were holding, then they have the opportunity to get rid of them.

If you were an investor, the up and coming item was streetcars, as the article mentions they were better than horse-drawn carriages, so taking a stake in these would have been a good idea. The article mentions that the transit systems are expensive to maintain; as publicly held companies, they need to make money. The current day transit systems with rail lines are heavily underwater and have a difficult time making any money, let alone addressing maintenance issues: BART, Metro, and Max. Knowing the return on investment from existing data, would you as a private investor purchase any of those lines.

So, the conspiracy can be developed in retrospect, but an over arching plot fails to account for some of the opportunities that fit more into an investor trying to make monies.

Then why are there discussions on gentrification. There are reasons why individuals are moving back into the city, especially the up and coming class of individuals. The new comers to the city are fighting urban sprawl by making the move.

Absolutely not. The bicyclists are all over the place down here. They drive in the speedo suits and are fully aware of their rights on the roadways.

Fuel efficiency and pollution mandates already occur through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Vehicles today, through the standards, are so much better than they were before. In fact, when people now try to commit suicide by locking themselves in a garage with the car on, there is enough leaks in a garage that it is near impossible. [1]

Telecommuting works, but it has been proven to have deleterious effects on workers and their progression within a company. If you are willing to take a risk on your career, then do it.

Cars are not subsidized. Gas is taxed as a usage fee at the state (14%), Federal (12%), and local (2%). Public roads are paid for by its users, however, the plateauing of revenues because of the CAFE standards has lead to the development of toll based roadways, which do not need subsidies.

Public transportation is socialist as it takes money from the gas taxes paid for by the public roadway users and heavily subsidizes public transportation. There is always a discussion to raise the rates on public transportation users to fully pay for its costs, but there is an outcry from its users. This is not to say that I am against it, public transit provides employment opportunities to low-income individuals who are not able to afford vehicle access. This is a public good that I am okay with using my taxes for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

[2] http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gastax.pdf

What have been some of the strategies suggested. There is a definite desire from the younger age groups to do something, but non-profits I have worked with or know are experiencing the same issue as you are seeing.

A professor of mine declared that he would donate to NPR when he had money, is it a case where the loan debts from the students is sapping the monies that used to go to the non-profits?

In the knowledge business world, the ability to do something requires a huge amount of capital to just get an initial product out the door.

For a photographer to take an amazing photo of Zion National Park, they have travel, equipment, and time expenses. In this case, how does the photographer get compensated for all of this if some celeb or background site takes the photo and writes on it: "My home on the range."

The huge back-end that is required to make something is the unseen portion of the economy, there should be a rights warehouse making it easy to put things on and declare usage fees.

*Edit: their to there, because I is grammatically correct.

1. The healthcare law will increase costs. Check that with where the premiums were at prior to implementation and then after.

2. Russia is a concern. Check that against our attempts at "reset."

3. Iran will not adhere to the document they signed with the Nuclear Act. Check that with the current ballistics tests.

I could go on, however, please do tell me what current racist governance the Republicans are engaging in. How far into the echo chamber are you that you believe this, please point to what actual racist policies Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush have implemented?

RomneyCare was not popular with the rest of the country's Republican party. Just because he had one thing on his record that would be contradictory to that of the current party does not mean all of his talking points are not valid.

Romney was spot on about Russia being a concern in the coming months and years.

This analysis demonstrates how people just take sound bites, package them, and then spout it out in arguments.

The Democrats party pushed forward on healthcare reform. The tide was moving that something had to be done and there was movement to look at this, however, there were many different policies being proposed; President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for.

Romneycare was not liked within the Republican party, the concepts of what it took to enact, what it required to run, and what it asked of its populace were not well received. So, just because he was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it.

So, yes, the Democrats stirred the opposing party's populist sentiment through many policy decisions that affected them. The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners. As we sit here, rates are higher, the reforms are not occurring, and independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time.

Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing. It is all political. The media reports that he is a centrist, but based on my reviews of his opinions, he is left leaning with a few moments of conservatism; which is the optics President Obama wants to force a stand-off with the parties.