rkbabang

I just bought a used iPhone 5S in early September and activated it with Cricket Wireless. I pay $35/month for the basic plan (its $40 if you don't put your account on autopay with a credit card) for unlimited talk/text (in the US) and 2.5Gbs of LTE data. You can get more data and international text/calling for a little more. After you reach your data limit you can still use unlimited data for free but at very slow speeds. It is on the AT&T network (Cricket is owned by AT&T). After 3 months I'm still happy with it, no problems. For families they give a $10/mo discount for each phone after your first. EDIT: I was just looking at the group discount, it is better than that, it is $10 off for your 2nd phone, $20 for your 3rd, $30 for 4th and $40 for your 5th. So basically for the basic plan with 1 phone you pay $35/mo (with auto pay) for 2 phones it is $70/mo (you don't get autopay discount, just the $10 group discount), with 3 phones $90/mo, and if you have either 4 or 5 phones you pay $100/month, you get the 5th phone for free. Also I haven't done any referrals yet, but I think if you sign up from this link we will both get a $25 credit: https://refer.cricketwireless.com/6M30HaY

SU-24 is a variable wing ground attack aircraft. The variable wing aspect is the only similarity with the F-14 flown by Tom Cruise in Top Gun. A Su-24 is more like an A-6 Intruder or an F-111 Ardvark. These aircraft are ground attack and electronic warfare aircraft...they are not intended to operate in contested airspace, without fighter cover. A Su-24 Fencer would not stand a chance in just about any scenario against an F-16. You should give a fuck now. Russia has been predominantly operating Su-24's and Su-25's in Syrian airspace. These are ground attack aircraft. If Russia was attempting to pick a fight with Turkey, they would be operating these aircraft real close to Turkish airspace in conjunction with cover from Su-30's. The Su-30 would make it a pretty interesting fight, and that type of dog fight would likely cause Turkey to activate the NATO mutual defense clause, drawing other NATO countries into their fight with Russia. How do you think that would work out for everyone? That later point is my concern. Regional instability pulls larger powers in with conflicting interests and those larger powers clash. No different than world war II where everyone from Russia, Japan, the U.S., and Norther Africa got involved with a war that was mostly for Europe. I'm not saying that this will be the beginning of that war, but I do fear it has the potential to escalate things until we get to that point. I posted on Facebook yesterday that I feared that we may have just witnessed the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. We'll see if things escalate or every keeps their heads cool and de-escalates the situation, but last I knew, Russia was sending in warships to the area to provide cover and the U.S. and French were discussing doing the same... I was thinking Vietnam. I mean, what could possibly go wrong when two major powers are waging a proxy war via a country's civil war. Sending U.S. advisors in a "non-combatant role" to assist with one side of the civil war... Waging an air campaign which will ultimately prove to be ineffective without boots on the ground. I swear I have I seen this story unfold before... Oh wait, Vietnam... You can both be correct. Remember history doesn't repeat it just rhymes. WWII wasn't exactly the same as WWI and WWIII won't be the same as either of them. There are always a lot of common themes in any war. Politicians/leaders being unnecessarily aggressive, doing stupid things, and outright lying to the public usually all play a major role in any conflict.

If you provide a service that is your product (like a plumber or a money manager). Hedge funds have a product. They invest their partners'/investors' money to earn a return. You can debate how well they succeed over the long term, but regardless of if each individual hedge fund offers a good product or a bad one, the investment services that they offer is a product.

It is all good for the military industrial complex. War is profits. It is all good for the government. War is the health of the state. Most people don't want war, but most people aren't in charge. Those who benefit from war are. Don't look at it as "How does our foreign policy benefit the average american". Think of it as, "Will this destabilization create more war and terrorism in the world? Will this profit the military contractors? Will this give politicians an excuse to do all the things they could never get away with before? Will this make people more nationalistic (and thus more supportive of the government)?". All you need to understand what is going on is ask "Who benefits?" and realize that they are not on your side.

Except that the lenders would rather extend the debt than own the companies where ever possible, especially if the companies can meet their debt obilgations. Arx, and wcp, are having no trouble meeting their debt and dividend obilgations, and pwe may be headed there shortly. With each succeeding day at these "new low prices" the producers are bringing costs down in NA. In the non capitalist countries there is no incentive to bring costs down. I can only imagine the difficulty for Russia's, or SA's state oil companies to cut costs. Russia and SA are dependent on oil and gas to finance government operations. NA is not. In N. America's diversified economies something else picks up the slack. If the prices rise, the surviving NA producers will become very profitable very quickly. Packer, thanks for the chart. Nice summary. Not if that US or canadian producer has a ton of debt obligations he/she needs to meet! The hypothetical US or Canadian producer with a ton of debt has a finite amount of time in which they can produce at a loss, as does Russia, SA, etc. But, the US/CDN producer has a much greater finite amount of time. -Crip Not necessarily, the US/CDN producer has creditors who can declare it in violation of debt covenants anytime. Russia has gunz. The Russians and Saudis have no incentive to cut costs. Their economies and social programs and bureaucracies are incentivized for the opposite. If they cut costs people lose jobs, and there are no alternatives. Can/Us have much more elastic economies. Lenders are never in a hurry to take on the expensive dog's breakfast of CCAA or Chapter 11, if there is any chance they will get repaid at some point. We have seen lending agreements modified over and over in the Canadian west over the past year. The survivors in NA will come out of the low price environment in very good shape. If the price remains steady they will continue to cut costs as needed. Eventually the other countries will be forced to capitulate. This didn't work out according to plan. +1 this is close what i have been thinking. The saudis/ Russians are not rational economic actors in this ..for them it is about revenue and keeping their spending afloat. if we apply game theory it makes a lot of sense lets say, OPEC reduces production to prop up price, price goes up, NA and Canadian producers with marginal cost increase production and the price goes down. So the OPEC and other countries lose market share without gaining anything OPEC increases production, price drops ..everyone suffers equally. this almost looks like the prisoners dillemma - atleast in the short run. In the long run, it all comes down to whether oil demand keeps growing, or solar/ alternates caps that. on that count, it is even more confusing (for me) I'm on the same page as well, the US becoming a major oil producer has really thrown a wrench into the works from the point of view of Russia and the Middle East. My only worry is the instability of some of these countries that depend on oil money. What will Putin do? I'm afraid ... no ... terrified, that we might be about to find out. He certainly has been handed the excuses he needs to start becoming even more militarily aggressive. And with a NATO country directly involved it is a dangerous situation.

NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station

are you actually going to do this? I would be open to it, I am not at this point in time going out to actively seek such an opportunity. Right now my life is fairly busy with 3 young kids and our spare bedroom is already occupied but an 18 year old student who's parents are abroad. So I am not seeking it out but if the opportunity sought me out I would see if we could accommodate them. The government might have something to say about it though. These Groups Have An Idea To Help Syrian Refugees: Let People Sponsor Them "Every single day we get phone calls from Americans who want to privately sponsor a refugee," said Omar Hossino of the Syrian American Council. "But since the private sponsorship is not legal, it's not an option, the government doesn't permit that, they're unable to do that." I think the problem is that the Republicans don't want the refugees here at all and the Democrats would rather funnel them into the welfare system where they will become multigenerational dependants on government (and thus become multigenerational Democratic voters). The last thing either party wants is for private people to bring them here, sponsor them, and help them get on their feet.

Apple, meet Orange. Is it really though? The quote about history not repeating, but rhyming comes to mind. You posted this while I was typing my last reply. Great minds think alike.

Oh yeah, that's right, this time we have a reason other than bigotry, even though every generation thinks this. Syrians are violent terrorists with a different religion and culture. Remember history doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme. Ok so how about this one: Irish Immigrant Stereotypes and American Racism http://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/images/WildBeast-pg.jpg "The Most Recently Discovered Wild Beast" (1881) is one of a series of nineteenth-century images portraying the Irish as violent and subhuman. In the U.S. survey I use images of this sort when examining the history of anti-immigrant prejudice and its relationship to American racism. Native-born Americans criticized Irish immigrants for their poverty and manners, their supposed laziness and lack of discipline, their public drinking style, their catholic religion, and their capacity for criminality and collective violence. in both words and pictures, critics of the Irish measured character by perceived physical appearance. Political cartoons such as the "Wild Beast" offered an exaggerated version of these complaints. The Irish-American "Dynamite Skunk," clad in patriotic stars and stripes, has diabolical ears and feet and he sports an extraordinary tail. around his waist he is wearing an "infernal machine," a terrorist bomb that was usually disguised as a harmless everyday object, in this case a book....

From the June 6, 1939 Daily Mirror. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5126bbb4e4b08c2e6d1cb6e4/t/517d4105e4b065cfbf62bbd1/1367163143250 Sketching the SS St. Louis

This doesn't worry me too much. I doubt that was pulled off by Syrian refugees. To me it sounds like an inside job by someone who knew that the alarms were disabled. There are plenty of guns in the US already, a dozen more aren't going to make a difference, and I'd much rather the guns be in the hands of civilians than the government anyway. If you buy guns legally, you have to register with FBI background check. Since you know that FBI knows you have guns, you will be more careful when you use it, and I don't think you can buy M4 assault rifles? If you steal guns, you don't need to go through any checks. That's day and night's difference. Muscleman: Yes, a "civilian" can buy M4 assault rifles....You can also buy them WITHOUT ID or any government check/regulation. You must pass a background check WHEN PURCHASING FROM A FFL DEALER. If you are buying from an individual "second hand", the only check is that they ask you if you are felon/criminal. If you are not, you are good to go...If you are a felon/criminal, the seller can't sell, and you can't buy. Another way to purchase rifles is to buy "partially assembled" "lowers". These are not fully formed guns...but they simply require drilling of a hole to complete them. This is also a very inexpensive way. Please see: http://aresarmor.com/store/Category/hmgar15 An individual can also purchase fully automatic machine guns and silencers. These are "class III" weapons, and are heavily regulated. Both the purchaser & seller have to have a "tax stamp" & other paper work. They are also heavily regulated in their movement...I know people who have done this. It is expensive and heavily regulated. Machine guns will sell for $10k, sometimes even more, depending on the model. Almost no crime is committed with these weapons... If you don't want to pay $10k + and still want an "automatic" rifle...you can simply buy a "bumpfire" kit. These cost about $75 or so. I think they only work with AR-15's...not sure about AK's though... There is NO central FEDERAL registry of who owns what weapons. The background check simply checks to make sure you are eligible to purchase and that you are not buying 30 rifles (at one time) or other unusual activity. These records are also supposedly not held on the federal level for longer than 24 hrs. Depending on where you live (state level), you may be required to register pistols/handguns. Of course, most enlightened states don't do this. On a different note, I am concerned on MANY different levels about immigration...but that is a different response... You forgot to mention that thanks to Ronald Reagan's gun control laws, you can only transfer machine guns manufactured and registered with the ATF before May 19, 1986. If the M4s were select fire and manufactured after that date it would be impossible for a civilian to own them (legally anyway).

This doesn't worry me too much. I doubt that was pulled off by Syrian refugees. To me it sounds like an inside job by someone who knew that the alarms were disabled. There are plenty of guns in the US already, a dozen more aren't going to make a difference, and I'd much rather the guns be in the hands of civilians than the government anyway. If you buy guns legally, you have to register with FBI background check. Since you know that FBI knows you have guns, you will be more careful when you use it, and I don't think you can buy M4 assault rifles? If you steal guns, you don't need to go through any checks. That's day and night's difference. I don't see myself being any less careful with my guns depending upon what the FBI knows about me. I also can't see why someone planning a terrorist attack would care much about what the FBI knows about them. They usually plan to die committing the attack, to make Allah happy. You can buy semi-auto only versions of the M4 (basically an M16 with a shorter barrel), but you are correct that the select-fire version is probably what was stolen and you can not buy them. Although you should be able to. I'm not a supporter of background checks, gun registration, or limits on the types of guns you can buy or own.

This doesn't worry me too much. I doubt that was pulled off by Syrian refugees. To me it sounds like an inside job by someone who knew that the alarms were disabled. There are plenty of guns in the US already, a dozen more aren't going to make a difference, and I'd much rather the guns be in the hands of civilians than the government anyway.

I have never had an "obligation" to any so-called "country", nor does anyone else. You are not born with obligations to collectives or land masses.

Neither the Irish, nor the Jews , nor the Italians were considered to be full human beings by many when they were immigrating in large numbers. They were inferior animals with inferior cultures, on a par with blacks (who were also non-human). Not only were they not civilized, but they were uncivilizable (due to the fact that they were not fully human). Today it is the Mexicans and the Middle Easterners. The more things change the more they stay the same...

My only problem with illegal immigration is that it is illegal, there should be no such thing. The people who leave their entire lives behind and come here for a better life despite the various governments trying to stop them are heroes and just the sort of anti-authoritarian/get-it-done folks we need more of. EDIT: Come to think about it, maybe the laws do serve a purpose, it screens for the type of people able to get here despite them.

+1, It is also the only reason our population is growing rather than declining. The two things that made America what it is (immigration and capitalism) are the two things that are constantly under attack. People always seem to want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. A good book to read if you haven't already is "A Renegade History of the United States" by Thaddeus Russell. It basically goes in to great detail about how immigrants and other out-groups (Blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, prostitutes, bootleggers, gangsters, smugglers, etc...) are responsible in large part for many of the freedoms we enjoy and for making America what it is today. It is a much underappreciated and ignored part of our history, and it is one that is on going as we speak.

WFM @ $29.17 this morning.

Not really related, since he specifically said he wasn't "interested in illegal bullies or government favorites", there is nothing wrong with the third type of monopoly at all. The type of company "that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute." These are few and far between however (the vast majority of monopolies are due to government interference in the market) and are fragile, in that if you stop being the best at what you do or you anger a large portion of your customers (bad service, way too high pricing, etc) it will become a huge incentive for others to find a way to compete with you. For an example Google is a type of this rare monopoly, where as Comcast could never in a million years hold its monopoly (in the geographical areas where it has one) without government.

Still TBA, but everyone's invited.

I never did understand what possible purpose allowing corporations to have bankruptcy protection served. It protects the poorly run firm from the consequences of its decisions at the expense of its creditors and competitors. If you just let poorly run firms die and allow the creditors to split up and sell off any assets, then the creditors get something and the better run competitors have one less competitor and can remain strong. Like every form of protectionism it protects the bad actors at the expense of the good actors, inverting the incentives, and makes the entire industry/economy weaker. It's like watering the weeds and poisoning the flowers.

I've mentioned and recommended it before here. It is by far the best podcast out there and one of the only ones I listen to whenever there is a new episode. The other podcasts I listen to occasionally and intermittently, some are Tim Ferris, Bulletproof Executive (mostly health related, I still drink bulletproof coffee every morning), School Sucks (only the first 50-100 episodes or so are really good, downhill after that), Freetalk Live (some good, some boring), Freedomain Radio (listen to the first few thousand shows, his recent psychological craptrap is unlistenable). And lately I've been listening to audiobooks almost exclusively. I find myself listening to books that I've read and remember enjoying. The audio production is a whole different experience and some of them are very well done. I'm listening to Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle now, it is something like 70 hours of audio, but very well performed. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were also very well done audio books.

the more i listen to him the more i feel he's an arrogant bastard who thinks he's an expert on everything. Can't seem to stop listening though. LOL. An entertaining arrogant bastard then. I like his show as well.

Shark Attacks

One of the things this article mentioned is a question I had already. With Playboy going non-nude, will it be more of a direct competitor to Maxim? Even with the nude pictures Playboy was classier than Maxim, now it will be no contest. Someone might read Playboy for the articles, but why would you read Maxim at all? I have to wonder what Biglari thought this could become? I don't see it turning out anything but bad.