rkbabang

It depends on where you live. Their coffee is actually different regionally. In New England McDonalds sources its coffee from Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and it is pretty good. In other parts of the country they source it from 3 other companies (S&D Coffee, Gavina Gourmet Coffee, & Distant Lands Coffee). I'm not sure about outside the US.

The new 1/4 pounders are pretty good. But I agree with you about the egg McMuffin and the coffee. I usually make my coffee at home, but in a pinch I like McDonalds coffee better than Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks and it's cheaper too. And the Egg McMuffin and Sausage McMuffin w/ egg are far and away better than any gross microwaved egg sandwich you can get at Dunkin Donuts. Maybe McDonalds has never had a great burger, but they have always had a good burger. I just wish they'd go back to using tallow for their fries, because they used to have great fries. Oh my God, and the pies, WhyTF did they ever quit frying them? Who do they think they're fooling with a baked apple pie? What? You don't like surgery apple filling wrapped in glazed cardboard? I'm surprised they even keep those on the menu, they must throw out more of them than they sell.

The new 1/4 pounders are pretty good. But I agree with you about the egg McMuffin and the coffee. I usually make my coffee at home, but in a pinch I like McDonalds coffee better than Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks and it's cheaper too. And the Egg McMuffin and Sausage McMuffin w/ egg are far and away better than any gross microwaved egg sandwich you can get at Dunkin Donuts. Maybe McDonalds has never had a great burger, but they have always had a good burger. I just wish they'd go back to using tallow for their fries, because they used to have great fries.

With everything done with lasers now the younger generations will never know what it is like to need to clean the lint off of mouse balls in order to continue working.

That ship has sailed and it's cheatin' 0bama's fault! I'd say the whole damn mess in the world is Wilson's, Coolidge's, Hoover's, Roosevelt's, Truman's, Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, Carter's, Reagan's, Bush's, Clinton's, W. Bush's, Obama's, and Trump's fault.

Where can one find the 2013 Trump? That guy had a better plan for how to handle Syria. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/377038618407493632?s=21 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/378389940671107072?s=21 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375307391635451904?s=21 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375075774644363264?s=21 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373557904861069312?s=21

yet

Every time I hear this argument I wonder, where do you draw the line? Curious to hear your thoughts. I don't draw lines. And who gave you the power to draw them? You do whatever you want to your body and let me do whatever I want to mine. Not much to add to this thread, but "do whatever you want to your body and let me do whatever I want to mine" isn't the best argument. There are too many real world externalities. Who pays for the hospital stays, police force, etc. etc. for people who are drug addicted non-productive members of society? Drugs users don't exist in a vacuum. Since violence would decrease substantially under legalization, medical costs (stabbings, gunshot wounds, etc) would drop dramatically as would police costs. Gang warfare and the cost of militarized police are not cheap. Your drug war doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Every time I hear this argument I wonder, where do you draw the line? Curious to hear your thoughts. I don't draw lines. And who gave you the power to draw them? You do whatever you want to your body and let me do whatever I want to mine.

Funny now that they are on sale there isn't a lot of people asking which ones to buy now here lately. I bought more Bitcoin yesterday.

I was at a internal company conference last week (semiconductor industry) and attended a workshop on neural networks/AI. It blew me away both how much can be easily done and how little resources (silicon area/power consumption) you actually need to do it. I was under the impression that for AI to be useful you needed some serious GPU/matrix math horsepower or super wide and deep custom silicon neural nets that suck up power. The current research that was presented here shows that isn't necessarily the case. You can do a hell of a lot with a very little resources. The silicon neural nets can be simple and be relatively small. There are going to be small to medium sized low power consumption neural networks on all kinds of chips in the very near future. I was bullish on AI before, but now I think it is going to simply explode. This research/methodology was less than a year old. The products/advances of the next 10 years are going to simply dwarf what we've seen in the last 30. I'm not going to say anymore because even though much of this was done in partnership with a few different universities I'm not sure how much is proprietary to my company. Exciting stuff though.

Do you read conference call transcripts? What is your source? I usually receive emails with the transcripts from seekingalpha for the tickers for which I get alerts on. Come to think of it, I haven't received any lately. Hmm.

I haven't noticed anything different about seekingalpha. At least the way I use it it is the same. I have them email me articles about the tickers that I'm interested in. And I click on the articles I wish to read from their emails. So far they have never emailed me about an article behind a paywall. I don't know if they are only free for limited time and disappear later though. I don't usually go directly to their website to search.

You guys are playing the role of Cathy Newman to ScottHall's Jordan Peterson. So what your saying is that ScottHall thinks LC should clean his room?

This is a pretty awesome perspective. So if I'm getting what you're saying, it's totally okay for anyone who owns a construction company to burn down your house, since they will have created net positive houses in the world. It's okay for a woman who's had a bunch of kids to commit a few murders, since she's created a net positive for human life. Oh wait, I misunderstood. What you are actually saying is that there should be no consequences to someone burning down your house because there's a chance in the future that they might build more houses. I find it interesting you could have looked at these cases said, "These people broke the law and faced the consequences. Now we have to fix the system so that everyone faces the consequences, not just those who thumb their noses at power." Instead, you say, "These people broke the law but because they might contribute to the world, they should not face consequences." (In a way, that's the most left-wing suggestion I've heard on these forums--anybody should be able to break the law without consequences because they might do something later that is a net positive for the world.) We will just never know what Charlie Manson would have contributed to society had we left him free. Kidding, obviously, but what I think ScottHall was saying is that Shkreli would likely never had been charged with securities fraud at all if he hadn't raised the price of Daraprim. If this is true, then his being charged and convicted was politically motivated and it was really for raising the price of a drug not for securities fraud at all. Someone like Jeffrey Dahmer for instance was only prosecuted for murdering and eating people with no political motivations at all. He was making a distinction that you have missed or chosen to ignore.

I agree. And if this wasn't the case humanity would still be hunting and gathering. The relentless striving for more is what has gotten us this far. Look at Jeff Bezos, he's worth over $100B, why does he go to work? Why doesn't he cash out and live the good life? My wife and I were just talking about this the other day. We could probably buy a tiny house someplace with a low cost of living and retire now in our 40's, but we won't, because we want more. I'm sure I'll work until I either physically or mentally can't. Humans aren't wired for contentment with what they have, and thank goodness for that.

Every once in a while you look at a member of a BOD and think WTF is he doing on there (like Al Gore on Apple's board), but this board is made up of more than half of those types. 2 insiders (OK), 2 ex-CEOs(OK), 1 epidemiologist(OK), and 7 political hacks(WTF).

I forgot I had an account with TOR. (free) So I took a screenshot for you. I use uBlock Origin so I really don't know about the ads since I don't see them. It does remind me of the old Google reader. Thanks I think I'm going to try it. I've been using Feedly since Google Reader went away, but I've never been really happy with it.

So Musk, Trump and Bezos were all frauds who eventually turned the corner? No, but these criticisms of her were abundant here even before it was known that she was a fraud.

It looks a lot like the old google reader, so I went to hit signup and it mentioned a premium feature. There is no info about it without signing up, so I didn't join. I don't like having no information about what I'm joining before I join. Too much like bait and switch. What is the cost for premium and how crippled is the reader, or cluttered with ads, if you don't pay?

Had she looked, dressed, and spoke exactly the same, yet her product worked exactly as she said it did with no lies and/or fraud would you still have said this? I don’t see how any of that matters.

Not relevant to you, which is fine. How long does someone taken in by a bitcoin scam hold bitcoin? The only thing this might do, if anything, is dampen some of the wild swings as Mr or Mrs gullible fall for bitcoin Genius ads, buy bitcoin after spending $200 on a newsletter that they didn't need, then panic and sell at the first drop in price. It has no effect on whatever long term value bitcoin has or doesn't have. It might or might not have long term impact on the value of cryptocurrencies (I never mentioned Bitcoin specifically, this is a thread about cryptocurrencies in general). ICOs that used ETH certainly had an impact on demand for it, and if fewer ICOs can easily raise money, it certainly changes the dynamic for the number of projects and people working on them. Sure the worse projects will be hit first, as it should be, but it's still an ecosystem that is interconnected. I don't know what the impact will be, but having both FB and GOOG off limits to market ICOs certainly isn't nothing. But in any case, my interest in the news was mostly related to the societal harm caused by all these scams and frauds. Making it harder for them to reach victims is a good thing, and worth noting. The world wouldn't be a better place if securities were unregulated and sophisticated marketing operations could say anything to convince your grandma to empty out her retirement account. The difference here is that FB and Google are not being forced to do this. Instead of blindly following some law written by elected morons, they will work to get it right to satisfy their users. If they decide to eventually let some ads through and not others based on metrics they come up with they can still do that. When something is regulated from on high in broad strokes, it is always one size fits all and followed to the letter regardless of how absurd it makes some individual cases. I have no problem with Google trying to block their users from a bunch of scammers. One of Google's strengths is the usefulness of the ads they show you, but if those ads are scams that isn't useful to anyone but the scammer. If people stop trusting the ads they see on google, the company is in trouble. Unlike a politician looking for a sound byte ("I passed the grandma protection act..."), Google has every incentive to get it right.

Excellent. Here’s another: “It would not be much of a universe if it wasn’t home to the people you love.”

Not relevant to you, which is fine. How long does someone taken in by a bitcoin scam hold bitcoin? The only thing this might do, if anything, is dampen some of the wild swings as Mr or Mrs gullible fall for bitcoin Genius ads, buy bitcoin after spending $200 on a newsletter that they didn't need, then panic and sell at the first drop in price. It has no effect on whatever long term value bitcoin has or doesn't have.

+1 The Bitcoin Genius is out of a job.