genericuser

No, I am. But you don't seem to understand the difference between hindsight and opportunity cost. (Either that or are trolling me, in which case success for you I guess)

I specifically said: "is able to see an existing opportunity which is better than education then they should choose it, why would they not?"

So you chose Education presumably because you thought getting a Spanish degree was a better option than those others, therefore you viewed the other options as having the opportunity cost. In which case you may have been bad at estimating benefit, or perhaps the choices you were trying to value were simply too unpredictable, but you followed the idea of opportunity cost correctly.

Or even worse you knew those options were better and you chose an option you recognized as worse, in which case WHY?

Opportunity cost is not a synonym for hindsight it is about weighing two decisions with information you have available (or can have) at the time.

Edit: Also now you know Spanish which should bring you as a person some level of enjoyment, and is therefore a benefit. If not I wonder why you would of kept studying it.

Opportunity costs do not make things bad. They can make things worse than an alternative or better than an alternative.

If the person choosing what to do with their life is able to see an existing opportunity which is better than education then they should choose it, why would they not?

But if they are unable to see such opportunities then choosing to become more educated is not a bad choice provided as is the case in this situation that it does not present an additional financial burden.

One could even argue that the set of options one should consider when weighing opportunity cost should only be composed of the options to which the decision maker is aware (can reasonably be expected to become aware) of.

I saw the press release as more directed towards average automobile buyers. As a "We will not be the ones preventing your favorite Automobile manufacturer from producing an Electric Car in the style you want, and neither will the research cost of the technologies we use".

I believe the message was phrased in a way to be directed at consumers so that hopefully the consumers will send a message one way or another to the other manufacturers causing them to come to more official agreements with Tesla. (which will of course have terms).

Lots of people still don't have smart phones, or computers they travel with. And so they do not use email when they travel.

And believe it or not there are still people in this world that may only have an email address with their employer which they don't access regularly outside of work.

And now back to the original article:

We are only getting one of many parts of this story, for all we know the scammer perfectly told a sob story about ordering a gift for their grandson who they haven't seen in several years and will be visiting soon but it didn't arrive in time for their trip and now would like it sent directly to the grandson while they are visiting him so they can still see the joy their gift will bring him.

My point is I don't assume that Amazon isn't trying pretty hard to prevent this fraud, and I don't assume scammers aren't putting in quite a bit of work to commit it.

In Boston UberX has wound up being about 75% of Taxis I had taken the same trips with every time I have used UberX. Then again I generally tip 20% in taxis so if I were a non-tipper the prices would be much more comparable.

Admittedly I am only using it between the hours of 12:00 AM and 2:00 AM to get home from bars.

The temperament of drivers has been a welcome change with uberX vs cab, I had a cab ride in Boston which was suspiciously high once (2x what previous identical trips had been), and I questioned how it was calculated and the response was 'It is not my job to know how it is calculated' to which I said 'Actually that is your job', that time I did not tip.

Yeah based on the word choice of 'my password' it seems likely she has a single password for everything.

The other possible way to interpenetrate her story is that the site asked for her email address and email password and she just freely gave those out. I don't want to believe this is the case but the phrasing doesn't prohibit it from being the case.

"And I received the login information -- this is all the first week of April -- and I logged in, and I put in -- as requested -- I put in my e-mail address and then put in my password."

Because manufacturing cost and other costs that are a direct per unit cost, as opposed to an over all sunk cost like development, can not be recouped by 'making up for it with volume' as they say.

So a company selling such games will have a higher price floor than games without those costs, and due to that floor may not be able to achieve a profit maximizing profit maximizing point that a game without those costs may be able to achieve (such as selling 100 million games at $1 each). Their entire set of optimal production possibilities would probably be shifted inward.

Not saying a consumer should factor this in, just the game maker has a restriction on the consumers they can target that they would not have without those costs.

The few I have asked have expressed to me that tipping isn't really a thing with uber, and while they would accept a tip it was not necessary or expected.

Because you believe the sex industry itself is bad? Or because specific companies and members of the sex industry are bad, and you are generalizing?

I would simply like to see more companies competing in the space of providing registration of domains for their top level domain than currently exist.

As far as I am concerned I see no reason not to have thousands or millions of top level domains.

I am a believer that with ample time and more options we will see the false assumption that everything is a .com become less widespread. (Although this belief is largely based on wishful thinking, I will admit)

Do less tech savvy people primarily convey urls to one another verbally as opposed to sending a link? I mean I might have that conversation but, if I actually want them to checkout my site I am going to send them a link or at least write down the URL for them regardless of how simple it is.

I know if someone verbally tells me a URL I am not going to remember what it was, or even that I should go to it.

.com is owned by a single company(and other top level domains owned by other companies), why shouldn't more companies own other top level domains?

Also, in regards to gp, saying .com is for all commercial companies is the equivalent of saying all commercial companies have to be in business with Verisign.

I've heard really good things about the Amazon Fire TV + XMBC (Gotham) from multiple sources at this point. Haven't tried it myself admittedly.

Your argument about this being a precedent goes counter to what the article itself says. I honestly have no idea whether you are correct in your judgement about whether this is a precedent but it seems like this is a complaint about the article more than the post you replied to.

"According to The Guardian, the case will be used as a precedent in more than 200 cases pending in Spain's court system; in many of them, plaintiffs are asking for links to be deleted."

A precedent for which the case becomes invisible to the public because all articles about it had to be hidden because of the precedent itself....

(I realize the precedent wouldn't allow for that because an important legal case like this would remain relevant, and therefore not fall into the category which it allows for removal of, but its funnier to me to imagine that it could apply to itself.)

I agree, as it seems like it allows people to basically curate their google results so that only positive things appear about them.

I agree there should be circumstances where content should be removed from indexes but if the content publisher is not required to remove it, and it is legal content, why should google or other search engine providers have to stop indexing it?

What I believe would be a functional system would be that a court order for the content publisher to take down the content should also require google to quit indexing the content, so cached versions aren't able to be found and in case the publisher doesn't comply. But that having a ruling that google has to act as a gatekeeper to legal and already public content about an individual because they feel it is not relevant any longer does seem like a dangerous precedent.

As the other poster I believe was trying to point out 'if it increases revenue' is the wrong way to justify spending money to make more money.

Since revenue is not profit, and most charities are non-profits anyway, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more money for betterment of the causes the charity serves.

As a complete hypothetical scenario examining two extremes which hopefully do not exist.

Charity B.A.D. could spend 100% of its revenue on seeking more donations and maintaining existing ones, leaving no resources for actually doing anything related to their cause, or distributing non monetary resources donated even. But they double revenue every year.

Charity P.O.R. Could spend 100% of its revenue, which are fixed at $10 a year, on advancing their cause.

My entire point is instead of saying 'increases revenues' you should say 'increases the money it budgets toward advancing its cause.'

Or rather they are talking about situations like the hostage example which they consider as taking place 'not in a battlefield'.

They are calling it DuckDuckGoodies if you click through to the page.

(I admittedly can't be certain they were an hour ago when you asked.)

My initial thought is the amount going to artists with volume like The Rolling Stones, and Bieber (or whatever the kids are clamoring for these days) must command a much higher rate per listen presumably shifting the total percent going to artists to be much higher than that.

My thought exactly, as a food exchange for well to do people this is a neat concept and all(especially with people who garden), but if people who actually NEED the food are able to use it (people who probably don't have iPhones) to get food that would otherwise be wasted then this app transforms into something life changing.

It goes from nice little app for people to waste a little less food or save a few bucks which they will spend at Starbucks or whatever, to an app that feeds people who would go hungry in a way that requires very little effort or cost to the person with extra food.

I have noticed that Swype is really good at guessing names of streets and restaurants and bars, and other proper noun locations I am physically close to (like walking distance) and much worse at completing correctly things farther away (like 20 min drive away).

If it is checking location data for location specific words it there should me a minimum time between checks as location can can't really change enough to matter in the 20-30 sec it currently uses.

Her experiment while interesting does not demonstrate that all of her elaborate steps were even necessary, just that she put a ton of work into doing this and was successful, who knows how much of that work was needed.

Also no where in her article does she reference someone else thinking she looked like a criminal. Yes there was the sign at the store about gift cards but nothing about the cashier caring at all. She alternates between 'look like a criminal' and 'feel like a criminal' while I agree she might of felt like quite a badass criminal using tor and paying for everything in cash and gift cards, the article in no way indicates others thought she looked like a criminal.

It does however show that she negatively views people who perform those type of actions, since she views them as actions that make her feel like a criminal; and, as with many people, views criminals negatively.

Also if you are going to have to go buy the gift cards to use at Amazon in the first place? Why even shop at Amazon? Why not go to your local Babies R Us (or wherever people buy strollers and such) and buy your items with cash there. The convenience of Amazon seems lost on me when I have to go to a physical store prior to ordering something on Amazon.

I see it as more of the 'if your problem is that you don't like surveillance, it shouldn't matter who is doing it' as Nike is being stated as a preferable body to have surveillance them than the IRS in a hypothetical worst case scenario for both which appears to involve them being a tax cheat.

It is not difficult after all to imagine a situation where the worst case scenario of Nike monitoring you is much worse than the worst case scenario of the IRS monitoring you.

Now what if riding your bike, structured and unstructured reflection, and everything you do in your free time were also part of your job?

And with the example of the athlete a portion of their job is to have down time, and not be out doing strenuous physical activities the night before the big game.

When I encountered the situation where my leisure became my job, I simply didn't have anything I wanted to do to fill the free time anymore. Sure I could of done push ups or gone on dates or something else which I personally hate doing, but making myself miserable in my free time isn't my idea of healthy.

My take away was that when your work is the same thing you would personally want to do with your free time (something you are passionate about) that doing 80 hours of work for your employer isn't really any different than 30 hours of work and 50 hours of leisure time.

80 hours still leaves over half his time for eating, sleeping, the small amounts of physical activity which are realistic, and small amounts of human interaction. It simply does not leave time for leisure or to unwind, but as I said previously if your work is what you would do with your leisure time then that's not an issue, as there is nothing to unwind from.

Now I have only encountered this situation for a brief 3 month project which I wish had never been finished. But this type of dream job type situation does exist, and I don not believe is unhealthy, unless you have some sort of family to maintain also (it doesn't really leave enough time for a healthy family life).

In many locations the taxes on vehicles come in the form of a separate excise tax on 'value' given to the vehicle based on its original value and age, this tax is administered at the City level where I live in Massachusetts.

Are there locations in the US where the general property tax is applied itself to vehicles? Or were you simply stating that things other than land and buildings could be taxed, and not that the property tax applies to them?

Ok that second chart is kinda a mess due to too much data, and an only partially visible legend.

But it raises a question for me on the draw order used. Is that the default draw order? As while I could be wrong it appears to be alphabetical same as the legend order. If this is the default it seems like a poor default.

Now not considering that most people will want attention drawn based on the data itself some how. It seems that if you are going to do the legend in alphabetical order the draw order for the lines should be reverse alphabetical order to ensure that the lines which are most visible (drawn on top) are also most likely to be in the top part of the legend.

I just am curious if this is a poor default or just a quickly made example chart. Or maybe it is a great default and I am missing something.

The public school your children attend is very much a decision as people commonly choose the location they live based on that. As evidence of this perceived quality of school district can be a major factor in property values.

As a minor many of your choices are of course left to your guardians, if as a minor you have a problem with their decision making then that's really an entirely different manner.

You are compromising saying 'its not worth finding a new place to live, possibly a new job, to avoid having my children use google' That is very much an analysis on your part.

If you believe that strongly that none of your personal emails should fall into the hands of Google, how is it silly to choose a school / job that will respect that belief?

I realize for the majority of people who would simply 'rather Google not have their information' the trade off and the additional effort on their part are simply not worth it,

My point is that everyone who is 'forced to use Google mail' is unconsciously weighing their objection to it against the inconvenience it would cause them to avoid using it, and chooses to use Google (is forced to, if you prefer) because the possibly ill informed cost benefit analysis tells them using Google is worth it.

I am sorry if this whole comment comes off trollish, but the the idea that people are forced to do things they are strongly against because they do not find the alternative to be convienent I believe to be a symptom of entitlement which is a problem with society (not a new problem) that I believe should be combated.

Edit to clarify - My quotes come from no where and are not actual quotes just hypothetical, probably straw man statements that I have come to expect when issues like this are discussed.