Ross812

Windows 7 replaced XP as the new long term enterprise operating system in February of 2011 with the release of SP1. The Metro UI of windows 8 is going to throw a lot of consumers for a loop when they first use their new laptop, but I never viewed Windows 8 as being a relevant enterprise OS. Give Microsoft a little time, say 2016 (2017 with the Service Pack) to produce something relevant for businesses. I think most businesses upgrade hardware on a 3-4 year cycle and every other cycle should be accompanied by an OS upgrade. Windows 8 will be Microsoft's effort to get the bugs in their tablet and phone interfaces ironed out as well as building an online software distribution store (ala the Windows app store). With that said I sold my ditm msft leaps in the $32 range. It is worth more that $32 but Windows 8 is far from a home run imo.

I read Amazon reviews for almost everything I buy and usually get the item that fulfills my function with the lowest price as long as 80% of people rate it with 4 or 5 stars. To be honest, I can't remember the last gadget I bought that didn't come from and online retailer. I pay up for shoes, computer components, kitchen ware, A/V equipment, and climbing gear. I saw a lot of people comment about paying up for computers. If you build a desktop computer yourself you will understand how the big manufacturers cut corners to keep their profit margins up. Dell, HP, Apple you name it will include inferior quality motherboards, power supplies, RAM, and peripherals. That being said, I would look for the cheapest laptop you can find that has the specs you need. The quality of the components is not going to vary tremendously. I have never owned an Apple laptop and can't speak to their quality because the OS cannot run the software I need so I don't even consider the platform. The best place I have found to get deals on quality A/V equipment is Amazon Warehouse Deals. Amazon sells a lot of used merchandise from B&M retailers at great prices. I have never been dissatisfied with anything I have bought from them.

Amazon- Retail Bidvest- Consumer staples in emerging markets Visa/Mastercard- Exposure to consumer appetite for debt world wide w/o banking risk Exxon- Energy IBM- Consumer and enterprise technology and services

I use mine all the time to view SEC filings. I use Dolphin Browser HD. To install it, first allow your kindle to side load apps: go to Settings>Devices and set “Allow Installation of Applications” to ON Next download and install Dolphin HD. Get it from: dl.apktops.com/app/201204/Dolphin_Browser_HD_8.0.1.apk If I ever run into any problems, I download the filing and use ezPDF Reader from the Amazon Market. It's well worth $3: http://www.amazon.com/Unidocs-Inc-ezPDF-Reader/dp/B004R13U6Y Hope this helps!

A link would be great! I'll be there in two weeks!

A big four auditor goes a long way, but I know of at least one example of a big four auditor getting tricked. There are many legitimate Chinese companies, but the risk is a complete loss to invest in any of them. Until the Chinese government has some method to protect foreign investors, the space is too risky for me.

Just in case anyone has a hard time figuring out what the consensus is: If you go to China and get a tour of their facilities - DON'T INVEST If you buy some of their products and its better than the I-Phone - DON'T INVEST If you research everything and are positive its the best investment in your life - DON'T INVEST To sum it up: DON'T INVEST The fact that 10 people withing 10 minutes told you to run away should tell you something!

It's very easy for them to fake cash on their balance sheet. The Chinese government does nothing to protect foreign investors and the company's board can do as they please with your money. There has to be trust between the company and shareholders that management will act for the shareholders (owners) when making decisions to mutually benefit the owners and company. Amongst Chinese small caps, there is a huge disconnect between the paper shares trading and the underlying company. I would go so far to say, often the shares you buy give you no rights of ownership and are not worth the paper they are written on. Even if the company has 55m in cash in the bank, there is nothing to stop management from diluting any ownership you may have a right two and taking the company private themselves. Look else where. The fact their auditors won't even deal with them should be a huge red flag!

I'm going off memory as I checked into this a year and a half ago when I started a virgin mobile contract. Both boost and virgin charge extra for the use of a blackberry. You could get it to work if you spoof the ESID, which is illegal in the first place. To find a working ESID you would have to buy a virgin mobile or boost mobile black berry or steal an ESID which is very illegal. I really like my virgin mobile service, and their android phones are pretty cheap. I have this one and its pretty good: http://www.amazon.com/LG-Optimus-Prepaid-Android-Virgin/dp/B004LJ8N78/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334694504&sr=8-1 they also have a version with a physical keyboard: http://www.amazon.com/LG-Optimus-Slider-Prepaid-Android/dp/B0060NG6M2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1334694504&sr=8-4

Well good response. I kind of agree with most of that. I'm not saying meat/nuts/green vegetables aren't intrinsically healthy. Our bodies evolved to handle those kind of foods the best because that was all that was available. If pasta and bread grew on trees and meat had to be manufactured by Kraft, then spaghettios would be the height of a healthy meal. The main disagreement, is if a prehistoric diet isn't the best, then what is? "I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea." But what's the alternative? I'm questioning if embracing a diet which our bodies never evolved to handle at any age is a good idea. It goes back to my soda analogy. Just because people are eating more starches (and drinking soda) now and living longer doesn't mean they are living longer because of the starches. I don't think that any other diet including foods or nutrition our ancestors never ate really makes any sense, since it is unnatural to humans. I also don't think diet had anything at all to do with short prehistoric humans life span. I think it was mostly because of complete lack of even basic healthcare, and greater risks from predators and famine. I mean, if you fractured your ankle in prehistoric Africa, you probably die. One drought can wipe you out. War and violence were very common. If low carb/high meat diets aren't conducive to old age, then we would see that in modern societies. What I mean is, modern groups of people with many similarities (healthcare, physical activity, genes, etc...) but different diets should see the meat eaters with shorter life spans. This isn't the case from the data I've seen. Hester I agree with you that we should eat what our ancestors ate. I'm not hawking white bread and soda by any means, I am just questioning the virtue of embracing a 65:35 animal to plant ratio for our diet. I think meat and high fat diets really do impact our health in a negative way if eaten too often, and most likely show up as health problems later in life. Our ancestors did not have to worry about later life problems because you're right, a broken ankle, lion, or a jealous rival got them first. The alternative I would propose is a mostly plant based diet. Keeping with the paleo plants is probably a good idea. I don't think cereal grains are necessarily bad, but they shouldn't make up the foundation of anyone's diet. I don't think the paleo diet is bad by any means I just don't like the high concentration of animal calories. There are some people taking the paleo diet a little too far. When I was researching it, I found blogs with people switching their A:P ratio with the newest research, fasting for a day or two, sleeping in 4 hour shifts, and arguing about which vegetables are ok. The research I have seen about vegetarian cultures shows that the people do not develop the same kinds of diseases we see in the western world. I would bet though, this is because they are not eating our processed foods and not due to the absence of meat. It does demonstrate that people can survive without meat; the opposite is not true. I know I'm just rambling now. I could have summed it all up by saying I agree with eating the kinds of food that our ancestors ate, I just don't agree with eating meat in that high of proportion because we die from diseases of old age today (diseases in which many nutritionists today suggest are caused by animal based diets). Our ancestors didn't worry about living to a ripe old age, they could eat all the whale blubber and elk liver they could find and is long as they had a few children and lived to 40, they were evolutionarily successful.

There is good evidence to believe the vast majority of hunter gatherer humans got most of their nutrition from meat products. http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full Remember, prehistoric humans didn't just eat the meat tissue, but also organs, fat, bone marrow, etc... One animal provided a lot of food. Meat was a far more reliable source of nutrition than plants for 99% of evolutionary history, since animals aren't seasonal, and generally aren't subject to environmental whims as much, like drought. The evidence that starches lead to increased longevity is dubious at best, at least from what I've read. The best evidence in my opinion is observing what happens when native Americans or other previously isolated traditional societies (Pacific Islanders, Africans) are introduced to western diets. In basically every case, when they switch from diets of fish, game, coconuts (in the case Pacific Islanders) and nuts to starches and processed flower, they gain wieght and start to acquire a myriad of diseases. Almost anytime a group of people switch from non-insulin stimulating food to insulin stimulating foods, their health goes to hell. The opposite happens when westerners go to primitive societies and eat like the locals for a long period. Google the studies of shipwrecked westerners who lived with the Inuit in the far North, eating nothing but meat. Almost every measure of health improved. As far as the claim that prehistoric humans lived shorter, so meat filled diets aren't appropriate for modern humans: Saying the solution is to eat a balanced diet of starches is a non sequitor. Why would eating something unnatural to the human diet, starches, be the answer? It would be like claiming prehistoric humans had a short life span, and never drank diet soda, and modern humans drink a lot of diet soda and live much longer, ergo the answer to longevity is the consumption of diet soda. Makes no sense. Besides, the reasons humans had a short life span were not nutritional, except for famine/lack of food. I very much liked your article. I was not arguing the fact that humans got the majority of their calories from meat in prehistoric times. The calorie density of animal sources of food is much higher than that of plant sources so naturally humans would eat meat if they could catch it. The 65:35 ratio means animal calories were easier to come by than plant calories. Prehistoric humans were eating what was available not what was healthy. Regardless if the majority of their food came from animals or plants they made it to a reproductive age. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to select humans that die after their reproductive years so they do not hinder the strength and fertility of the group. There is no evolutionary advantage for a prehistoric human to live much past their prime age of 35 to 40. I agree that primitive people's health goes downhill when they start eating a western diet. We all agree post 1950’s processed food is terrible for you. My concern comes from the ratio of meat guided by the Paleo diet. The 65:35 ratio of animal vs. plant based calories contradicts the majority of what I have read about long lived people today. I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea. The virtue of the Paleo diet is it teaches you to avoid eating processed starches and sugars. Cutting out the majority of processed food and white carbohydrates Western civilizations eat agrees with the recommendations most informed nutritionists would make.

I use this website to find all of my obscure related securities: http://www.quantumonline.com/ Search by the parent symbol. If there are any related securities, a hyperlink will appear to show them. It lists every listed and non-listed related security along with Moody's and S&P rating. You don't need to register.

Wow shalab, You beat me to it!

Approaching nutrition from and evolutionary standpoint as with Paleo diet is interesting. I would very much caution a diet high in meat though. Humans are not carnivores which is very apparent from studying the length of our digestive system and the shape of our teeth. We have to cook meat to make it easier for our bodies to digest, and evolutionarily, cooking meat helped sterilize it and prevents it from rotting in our long digestive system. I think we need to remember that cavemen ate meat to make it through the ice age, but the hunter gatherers were not terribly successful when compared to humans after discovering agriculture. I think the Paleo diet works because it gets you off much of the trash Americans eat. Processed food, white bread, sugar, baked potatoes, and the like. If we look at India and China which found their diet on rice, we don't see near the rate of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other "Industrialized" diseases. The Paleo diet obviously works, and if it helps you loose weight and stay healthy, wonderful. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have unlocked the "secret" to healthy eating. Meat is not going to kill you, but it can cause it's own host of health problems. Cave men didn't die of old age like we do today. If we look at the longest living people on earth today, they eat mostly vegetables (sweet potatoes, squash), rice, very little meat and no processed food. The paleo diet is one more way to get you off processed food, but I am not convinced it is "the" way humans are supposed to eat.

oddballstocks, It is easy to get way too involved with the science behind weight loss and ignore what really works: eat less, exercise more. Lifestyle changes are the only real way to stay healthy though. I know Buffett is going to hate me for saying this, but there is really no reason to drink a soft drink. I guarantee you the majority of Americans would lose weight by if they drank only water during the day. The average American drinks 20 onces of soda per day, males 12-29 drink 60 onces per day! Another easy one is cutting out fast food, or start small and start with cutting out French fries. By making one lifestyle change at a time, over a few years you are going to be impressed by how much better you feel. I agree that discussing the nuances between cooking oils is probably not the most productive way to get in shape, but it is one more 'easy' lifestyle change, that when added to everything else, has a very real effect on your health. I agree that all the nutrition tweaking is not going to guarantee a long healthy life. A friend of mine who grows their own food, works out religiously, and was on the national training team for bike racing died two weeks after finding out they had a brain tumor. I work out and eat as healthy as I can, but I love a good IPA, bourbon, and am a sucker for hand dipped ice cream! In the end I think you should do what makes you happy, and treats or even a bad habit is alright as long as you keep your diet in check. Three ice cream cones and a healthy diet isn't too bad. Most Americans have three ice cream cones, three or four fast food meals, ten soft drinks, a frozen pizza, and a couple starbucks frappuccinos; that's when you have a big problem!

I've read some mixed things on cooking olive oil. I think because it's mono unsaturated that the fat itself is relatively stable at higher heats (it has a highish smoke point since it only has one oxidation point "mono"). But I believe the other compounds in olive oil, the phenols in particular are damaged at pretty low temperatures. So you may want to reconsider cooking that olive oil since the phenols are apparently responsible for a lot of olive oils healthy qualities. On the other hand I've read articles saying that it has a low smoke point like this: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=dailytip&dbid=261 But then wikipedia puts olive oil's smoke point around coconut oil's, which doesn't make sense since everyone says coconut oil is good for high heat!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point Then again there seems to be a difference between the virgin and refined coconut oils! More confusion! Another thing I read about coconut oil is that it too can grow mold and hence mycotoxins. I put mine in the fridge as soon as I open it. it's a pain because it solidifies, but I just scrape some off with a knife when I need it. Looks like grass fed Ghee has a really high smoke point as well which might make it good for cooking. bargainman, It makes a lot of sense that cooking (high temperatures) would have ill effects on olive oil. I guess you are kind of throwing out the benefits of buying cold pressed oil if you heat it. I use it often sauté vegetables for Italian food so I should probably restrict the olive oil to a sauce ingredient, dipping bread, or my favorite quick meal- spaghetti tossed with spinach, pepper, Parmesan, and olive oil. Most of the time I cook with coconut oil. The virgin coconut oil adds an almost sweet coconut flavor to whatever you are cooking and has a savory component like butter. I don't know if there are any ill affects from heating coconut oil, or if the ill affects actually make the oil "bad" for your body (ie. heating honey actually makes the honey toxic). Fish cooked with a couple of table spoons of coconut oil to grease the pan is delicious! I don't refrigerate my coconut oil and have never considered the oil can grow mold. I know they have used coconut oil in the tropics for centuries and I'm sure they are not refrigerating it, but It can't hurt to be careful. My oil is usually a solid anyway when I take it out of the cabinet.

I drink too much beer to consider myself a health nut. I do cook with virgin cold pressed olive oil and organic coconut oil. Coconut oil contains lauric acid which is an antiviral/antibacterial and the short/medium chain saturated fats in the oil are easy for the body to break down. Olive oil is full of mono-unsaturated fats which are also easy for the body to break down. Make sure you buy cold pressed virgin olive oil. Cheap olive oil (virgin and extra virgin too!) is made by gathering olives that have fallen off the trees. These olives have started to rot and must be processed with high heat to remove all the impurities. Olive flavor extract or good olive oil is then blended with this purified olive oil to restore some of the flavor. Good olive oil is hand picked, cold pressed and thus pretty expensive. I am also a fan of supplements. I take vitamin B12 and D3 everyday. B12 and D3 are two of the most common deficiencies in the U.S today. Most milk in the supermarkets is fortified with cheaper D2 which is stored in your bones and makes them more brittle. As a value investor I research everything to death and have found Source Naturals Life Force to be a relatively cheap for a high quality multi vitamin. I also take turmeric every day (in addition to cooking lots of Indian food!) which has all sorts of health benefits worth checking out. Maintaining an active life style, and getting exercise is probably the most important aspect to health. It's easier to eat well when you're active because your body craves healthy fuel. I hate the gym, and running with no purpose bores me to death. I started rock climbing several years ago and have gone to the climbing gym 3 times a week and outdoors a couple times a month ever since. I never feel like I'm going to work out; I'm going to have fun and the workout is a fringe benefit.

Doubtful. ;) Here is a good story about it... well, sort of. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2012/story/_/id/7747670/2012-final-four-louisville-cardinals-fan-punches-kentucky-wildcats-fan-dialysis-clinic It seems the 71 year old UofL fan won that fight... But I have to hand it to you, UK fans are confident,even when on a dialysis machine. It will definitely be a big game to the few bluegrass members on the board.

Louisville, KY Sorry ragnarisapirate but the Cards are going to win this weekend :-)

This idea is amazing. The whole premise is to build customer loyalty though direct ownership of the company. The website is tied in with facebook and twitter. I can imagine status updates: Jane Doe just became an Apple Owner! (click hear to become an owner in your favorite company for as little as $10) The plan is soley to build customer loyalty and doesn't talk about wealth enhancement at all. I don't think selling stock aimed at new and most likey uneducated buyers is ethical. The sight should offer more educational resources. It looks like someone is going to make some money off this.

Direct link to .pdf download: https://www.yousendit.com/directDownload?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZ1K3gzS3FVQUtxbWlXNlJCek9yQVhDR3NyVEpGdzVHeHU0Q1JIWkNiZUFjREZDdnFUUXh1S0xqWWlWeE1MbXJsU0ZPQndJaksrMWwwQUMzaUJVNkYyeHZDbFlaMFlDWmNBPT0&experience=bas

Morgan, you may find this to be interesting about Watson. http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/35402.wss It looks like IBM's Watson is diving into health care!

Try an Apple TV if you want a change of pace -- I have to reboot it (unplug the power) time and again to fix it when it stops responding. Ericopoly, Try holding the menu and pause button at the same time for 7 to reset the Apple TV. It may save you a trip from your couch! Also, check out the an installation guide for xbmc on your Apple TV. It works really well and makes it much more flexible!

A quick look on newegg and I found the laptop examples below. Identical specs but the Apple laptop costs 33% more. Apple: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834100205 PC: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230168 For $660 you can get a superior laptop that weighs only 1.6 pounds more. Screen is an inch larger, 1 hour better battery life (Asus is honest with their battery life) , new generation i3 Sandybridge processor, and the Nvidia GT 520 graphics will run circles around Intel’s 3000 integrated graphics. http://www.amazon.com/U31SD-DH31-13-3-Inch-Light-Laptop-Black/dp/tech-data/B005PAIQG0/ref=de_a_smtd/184-7488816-6580764. That is just in their laptops. Don’t even get me started comparing the hardware of the Tegra 2 tablets at $350 to the $500 iPad. The iPad shouldn’t even be compared to the new Tegra 3 tablets.

Apple designs very good products, and sells them for twice the price of similar hardware offerings. At some point their polished iOS software is not going to outshine android enough to justify the price of their inferior hardware and margins are going to contract. They may have the same market cap as XOM but their revenue is only 25% of XOM’s. Being first to the market allowed Apple to sell their products at a 24% profit margin, but it cannot last. Mathematics is working against them; for instance, in order to maintain their current profit level at a 15% profit margin (still a huge premium to their peers), they have to increase revenue by 60%.