Parsad

Same happened to me. Maybe it's because we feel invincible and immortal when we are young, and then we realize as we get older we are most definitely mortal. Usually the aching joints after playing sports, as well as the tinge of arthritis that may be starting, give us the hard truth we never expected. ;D Cheers!

Actually, I could never go up a fraction that height...as I've gotten older, I've started suffering from a bit of vertigo. It's funny, from when I was a little boy right up to my early 20's, heights did not bother me at all. I used to rock climb, bungy jump, downhill ski on high, steep slopes and there wasn't a tree or rooftop in our neighbourhood that I had not scaled to the top. But probably about 8-9 years ago, I started to get a bit of vertigo from heights and it was even difficult to look straight down from our old office's 16th floor balcony. Cheers!

...collects 2 million percent return. Cheers! http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/09/07/suntrust-dumps-93-year-old-stake-in-coca-cola-collects-a-tidy-two-million-percent-return/?partner=yahootix

Actually what was a devolving political thread eventually turned into a very enlightening thread. I would recommend that boardmembers read from thread page 9 and on. StahleyP and Liberty were having one hell of an interesting discussion. We're fortunate to have such a broad-minded group of members. Cheers!

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense. Very clever! Let me ask you this. How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons? For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact. We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path. Eh? That was brilliant Eric...be careful, you may be asked to a duel now! ;D Cheers!

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others. There are plenty of people who disagree with social security, the military and even the utility of public education...should we stop paying for these things if a minority within a party (rhymes with pea) force the majority to cowtow the party line and they win the election? There are plenty of things we all pay for in a shared manner that we may not fully agree with...that's why we live in the countries and society that we live in...where people can speak their minds, have choices, and are given the opportunity to succeed. Cheers!

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be. Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others! That's tyranny. Yes Eric, you would think that rational people would grasp this! One is restricting the other from civil rights already available to one of them. Yet, somehow granting those rights to people whose sexual preferences differ is infringing on their rights. No one in my immediate family is openly gay that I know of, but I do have several friends who are gay and in my extended family. I can't see how they can make any more of a mess of marriage than everyone else out there. Over fifty percent of marriages already end in divorce, and I would say 1 in 4 have a hard time making it to even 7 years, where apparently plenty of itching begins...and apparently alot of conservatives do a lot of itching too! Denying one individual their freedom of rights is an affront to the constitution, yet here we are denying probably 1 in 10 people. Go figure! Cheers!

When you are hiding your children under the floorboards, something probably isn't right. I don't need God, Hitler or Mother Theresa to tell me that. Cheers!

I can't remember who it was but one comedian a few months ago described it best when Romney pretty much wrapped up the GOP nomination he said "And there you have it, it looks like it's going to be Mitt Romney, a man who has pursued this nomination with the single minded viciousness of an autistic Rottweiler" That's pretty damn funny! But at the end of the day I have to side with Ericopoly on this, the GOP will get my attention when they stop espousing agendas that openly discriminate against people. My conscience wouldn't allow it, basic civil and human rights like equality are not something I can compromise on. You would think they would have grasped this by now. So many who are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues would easily switch their allegiances if the Republicans stopped alienating and building walls. But this is the "forget you" party...literally, they tell you to f**k off and then forget about you. Cheers!

++1 parsed comes off as a left wing extremist moreover his infatuation with Clinton is naive and typical of the younger generation clinging to sentimentality driven logic - ie times were good when I was 23 and Clinton was president. The guy got a freaking blow job in the oval office, he not only disrespected the presidency he set a sexual tone that has since metastasized. Finally I am so disappointed in how nobody on this board can see through the political bs and how clean and straight Romney is. Nobody has been able to find any dirt on Romney he's exactly what the world needs right now. Better a blowjob in the Oval Office than coming out of the closet after cheating on your wife during trysts with your gay lover. Everytime I hear of a politician who voted against same sex marriage, but then got caught cheating with his gay lover, it's always been a Republican! Not saying that Romney is going to get caught. ;D It's funny how sex in the oval office is deemed to be more offensive than 100,000+ people getting blown up over a war that never should have happened...I'm glad you've got your priorities straight Moore! Cheers!

I second that. On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions. I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses. He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large. Between the three, I'll go with Clinton. W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine. The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan. And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch. W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there. You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then! I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton. Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them. I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do. Cheers! I obviously disagree strongly with your political views. I also disagree with your understanding of the facts. W did not nearly take down the financial system. Did the system get near the brink of collapse? In many ways, Yes. Was it W's fault? If so, how? What did he specifically do, or not do, that nearly took down the financial system? Tax cuts? Obama supported renewing all of them and still supports renewing 80+% of them. Medicare Part D? I have not heard anyone call for its repeal? Two expensive wars? While unwise, and budget busters, they didn't cause the recession. Budget deficits did not cause the recession. Crony capitalism? Your statement that it was worse under him than the last 100 years combined shows you do not have even a basic grasp of US history. How is this W's fault any more than Congresses? In fact Congress is the one that writes the laws. (Which is what I find ironic about Harry Reid criticizing what Romney paid in taxes. It is not Romney's fault, he followed the law, it is more Reid's fault). Even the phrase "crony capitalism" is interesting in that it ignores crony governmentism (public sector unions, grants, etc). It is a congressional problem and ultimately a voter problem since we continue to let it happen. Fannie and Freddie? The blame there is more (but not exclusively) on the Democrats in Congress who resisted changes. How is a President to prevent a housing bubble? Greed blinded the buyers, originators, and lenders. Was the crisis due to lack of oversight on banks? Not solely, but it certainly contributed. Did W repeal Glass Steagall? Nope, that was Clinton and the Republican Congress. Democrats are running around saying that the crisis was caused by failed policies of the past? And therefore we need a new course. Of course they don't mention many specific policies. Interesting. Well those basic policies (lower taxes and smaller government) were started under Reagan and continued through Clinton. They worked fine for quite a while, and can in the future. US global stature is not the best barometer. Wars will lower your support. That Europe likes Democrats who share their views is not surprising. As for oil production increasing. Come on. Do you actually think Obama is that focused on it? What specific policies did he push for in order to increase production? How is he helping unlock reserves in the Bakken? How is he helping offshore drilling? It was the private sector that did it in spite of the obstacles. By the way, Iraqi oil is Iraqi oil. Iraqi production does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Lastly, what did Obama do that saved us from the crisis? He stabilized the financial system. That was done through implementing TARP which was passed at the end of the Bush presidency. Of course we still have a too big to fail problem which neither party has done anything about. He "saved" the auto industry. That too was funded under TARP. Of course he also did it through screwing bond holders and non-union pensioners. He passed a stimulus bill. Most recognize it for what it was. A handout to his constituencies, which greatly reduced its effectiveness. That you would like to see Obama talk about working with Republicans is nice. He has had four years. He chose not to. Look at Woodward's new book that reveals that the White House did not even have Boehner's phone number. He was the House Minority Leader. Obama doesn't even do a good job working with his own party leaders. Clinton and Reagan worked with the other party. When roadblocks occurred they went to the people and swayed them. Obama has done neither and shows no inclination to change. Time for change. Gee Tim, tell me what you really think! It's about what I expected. It's funny how it's always about Obama and the Democrats not working with the Republicans. Who got almost everything they wanted in the last budget session? The Republicans pretty much bullied their way through. What exactly on the Democrat's agenda was appeased? Obama has a hard time with his own party, because he's pretty much towed the line from previous administrations (both Democrat and Republican) on budget issues, tax cuts, foreign policy (except Dubya) and state issues. Most of you Republicans characterize him as some left-wing, Marxist activist who is going to destroy the country, yet he's actually been more centre-right than anything else in the last four years. You talk about Reagan and Clinton, yet it was Bush who started the country on this road down deficits and doubling debt. If the finances were in better shape under Bush, do you think the country would have been in better or worse shape to handle the recesson? Oh that little budget buster war in Iraq...one that should not have been fought in the first place. What about all of the money and lives lost on a war that never should have been. What about all of the fraudulent and inflated bills paid to companies associated with Bush & Cheney? Back in February 2003, Bush changed the watchdog over Fannie and Freddie because of fears there, yet he went on to pour more gasoline on the fire with lax regulation on banks, lenders, easy monetary policy and loose credit for consumers for another four years. This was a guy who bankrupted several companies, and now he was in charge of the United States of America...what the heck did you think was going to happen! In September 2003, there was further inquiry into FNM and FRE, yet no changes in legislation or regulation. And what was stopping Bush from enacting tougher lending standards on banks and other financial institutions, or especially mortgage backed securities? How about hedge funds? I was writing about hedge funds back in 2006 and early 2007, yet nothing happened. No tighter regulation or transparency. I was criticizing his policies way back on the Motley Fool board and also on the old MSN board. Some people saw the blowup coming a mile away, most saw it coming much closer, yet his administration just kept on pouring gasoline on the whole damn thing. We all saw Angelo Mozillo on CNBC talking about 110% financed mortgages...did Bush or his administration do anything? No! The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated that this crisis was avoidable...so who the heck was responsible for avoiding it for the seven years before it happened...Bush! Honestly, I don't think Bush was solely responsible for the problems. I do that to wind you guys up. There were alot of people responsible and it goes back to Reagan, then Clinton, but Bush was a significant part of the problem and his cronies were even more of a problem. You guys complain that Obama hasn't done much to fix the problems...it was one hell of a problem to deal with...yet he's dealing with the problem the same way Republicans would have dealt with it...since many of them are still in charge of fiscal and monetary policy. You want change because you're impatient...but the change you are going to get is worse for the entire system. I don't want to see the dark days of the Bush administration repeated. I don't think any administration could have done a worse job with foreign policy than Dubya & Chaingang Cheney, so Romney & Ryan are a step up from that. But it's your country, and you will have to decide where you go from here. I think Clinton said it best...is it on your own or are you in this together? Cheers!

Yeah, I thought about that, but then the spammers may start inundating my mailbox, instead of the registration box on the website. I get enought crap already! ;D Cheers!

In fairness, there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, including democrats and the private sector. Regarding crony capitalism - which is a huge problem - I wish it was diminished under President Obama. Unfortunately, I think it continues unabated. Yes, of course, but it happened on his watch. Isn't that what the Republicans are pounding on regarding Obama...that he hasn't been able to fix the economy on his watch? Well, if all of the recovery hinges on Obama, then all of the Great Recession really falls on the shoulders of Dubya based on that logic. I'm being facetious. Of course, not all the blame is Dubya's, but I don't think you can expect full recovery in four years from Obama or anyone else after what we went through. Cheers!

You're missing out on the Eastwood speech then! Oh that was brutal! That's why I didn't include it...it wasn't even a speech. It was a cranky old guy doing vaudeville! ;D If you've ever seen Bill Hader doing Clint Eastwood on SNL, that was exactly it. I used to think Hader was just doing an exaggerated caricature of Eastwood...I was wrong, no exaggeration. Cheers!

I second that. On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions. I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses. He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large. Between the three, I'll go with Clinton. W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine. The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan. And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch. W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there. You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then! I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton. Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them. I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do. Cheers!

If you have not seen Clinton's Democratic Convention Speech tonight, here it is. Master orator who can talk circles around the current candidates and especially their vice-presidential candidates. Cheers!

Thanks DCG...very good article! Cheers!

Damn it Olmstead! I thought it was something significant. The guy will probably get hired by Chippendales! Cheers!

Good article at SA about BAC. Cheers! http://seekingalpha.com/article/847721-bank-of-america-the-low-interest-rate-conundrum?source=yahoo

Hi Vish, Hopefully Paul will end up using something like that, since the three different questions I have don't change often. Cheers!

Put it this way...I just can't see anyone making even a small dent in Google Adsense's market share for the next ten years. They have almost 80% market share of the top 1M websites, but they only have about 28% market share of the top 1000 sites. The bigger you are, the more independent you can be of Google Adsense. But I don't see more top 1000 sites...it is what it is...but I do see millions of smaller sites being added regularly over the next decade. And no one can take those away from them. Cheers!

I'd be interested in the answer to this too. I know for a fact that for adwords (Google's search based ads), an advertiser definitely has to pay per click (sometimes big big bucks...). I wonder how adsense works especially for revenue sharing. Is it per impression, per click, per conversion? All of the above. You get paid based on viewership (impressions), clicks and conversions. But you have no idea whatsoever what the ad rates are, if you are getting paid relative amounts for similiar ads, which or why clicks or conversions are eliminated, or virtually anything else about how you are compensated. I've seen days and months were impressions were identical to other months, and number of clicks were significantly higher, yet somehow my revenues were half of what they normally would be. There is no way Google's rates would have been cut in half. These were non-high season periods as well...so not Memorial Day, July 4th Week, Thanksgiving or Christmas. The one consistency at the Google Adsense in Your City was that every single publisher I spoke to thought that Google's publisher support, disclosure and transparency were non-existent. They control everything and you either deal with them solely on their terms, or you don't have to deal with them at all. Unfortunately, their competition is about as impotent as publishers...doesn't matter whether it's Clickbank, adBrite or whoever else...Google Adsense is king! Presently, the way online advertising is structured, I believe Google's moat is stronger than Microsoft's was with Windows. So "Do no evil" is actually about as inaccurate as you can get. Publishers have little idea what their value is unless they go out there and market their sites themselves. Adsense is an amazing cash cow for Google and I would bet publishers are on the wrong side of that trade! Cheers!

I think reminding people of the donation option once in a while is a great idea. It doesn't even have to be done by Sanjeev. I'll set up a calendar reminder :) I agree that a way must be found to stop the spam. The fee would work, though I suspect that $1 would work as well as $50 (spammers will never ever pay anything, and if they are stupid enough to do and give you their real email/name via Paypal, you just ban them as soon as they spam and keep their money, and report them to their ISP). But better spam-catchers OR getting trusted volunteers to do some admin duties would also work. Most really popular forums end up with a team of admins/moderators, so it would probably be a normal evolution here to delegate some tasks. Just food for thoughts. Good ideas. Perhaps a hybrid? A one time fee for newbies plus quarterly donation drives, sort of like PBS? Yeah, that would work too. And that would take care of the main problem of spam registrations. Paul at Watermelon Webworks is already looking at a solution for the spam registrations. Cheers!

Does Lifetime Member mean I can never leave? :) Others may leave, but you may not Zarley! (cue ominous laughter) Anyway, I understand the problem that you are facing and I'm not sure that I have a better solution to offer, but I would suggest that the fee be a measure of last resort. Hi Stubble, the exact points you made were what through my mind, with the MF Boards being the prime example. I've thought about this a bunch of different ways. We originally put in the ads to compensate for the time and costs of running the board. Advertising works, but I'm at the mercy of Google...after spending 4 hours at a "Google Adsense In Your City" last week, I've found that SEO Optimization was a complete waste of time. Google can adjust their alogrithm to what they want, and publishers have no say as they are a virtual monopoly. I've never received a response from them on numerous attempts to find out why there were significant discrepancies between pageviews in Google Analytics and Google Adsense, as well as how there are sometimes enormous dropoffs in publishing earnings even when CPC's are the same and page views are higher. They just don't bother responding to you...period. We then put in the donation tab to avoid fees, and that worked splendidly in the beginning, but again like many things, it falls by the wayside. Other than a couple of members who regularly donated, there was virtually nothing after the initial stage. And the far bigger problem isn't any sort of compensation for my time, but simply the lack of time I have...combined with the fact that ads and donations have little effect on spam registrations...so this was the sort of last resort to deal with this issue. I never had any inclination to add a membership fee, but then I've found that was really the only viable workaround. The other option is just stopping new memberships altogether for a while, and then opening it up after a while. But again, this has no effect on spam registrations, and creates the same problem you alluded to of organic growth and the forum being almost a fluid, living entity. So I'm not completely sure what the solution is and I'm happy to entertain any ideas the board may have. Just wondering whether those of us who are registered users but not lifetime members, will we be charged as well? Hi Mephistopheles, No, all "Regular Members" will be converted to "Lifetime Members" and there will be no charge ever for existing members. It's just I haven't gotten around to converting all of them...I have to do each one manually, and there are about 1,400 Regular Members I have to still convert. Will it still be possible to lurk around, like reading the board without being registered for these maybe future users? Would it be sufficient to just implement a symbolic fee like 1$ or 5$ to protect against spam? (Not that I mean it is not worth more!) Hi Jeff, Yes, the public will still be able to read the forum, just not post. So newbies will have to decide if they want to participate and pay a fee, or just remain lurkers. On the second question, originally I thought about just a nominal fee for everyone to keep membership costs down, but then the existing members aren't responsible for spam registrations, so why should they pay it? I then also decided that a larger fee would get rid of spam registrations and allow no fee for existing members...they built up the board, so why should they be required to pay? Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut winning answer. You have pros and cons to any route we take. Again, if there are better ideas, please let me know. Nothing will be implemented until January 1st, so that means we can go a different route. The main thing is that I'm thinking about the future. If I'm getting 400 registrations a day now, while filtering over 200, and spending just over an hour a day running the board, how much time am I going to be spending two years from now...five years from now? I'm a hands on guy, and like the board a certain way, so it would be very difficult for me to let volunteers do this. Cheers and thanks!

Along with the spam filter and CAPTCHA, I have three questions registrants have to answer...they still somehow get through! It's a pain in the ass, but I'm still impressed how programmers do it. Cheers!