I always forget that I can't run my microwave and my electric kettle at the same time because they're both on the same circuit and combined it's too much power consumption.

Lisa Douglas, is that you?

(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058808/combined)

It's good for a long term homeowner, but messed up lots of other things.. As a kid, I remember tons of after school activities and such that _older_ kids had suddenly went away after Prop 13 went in. (Probably more than after school activities, but that's what I remembered at the time...)

(I bought a few years ago, so I have a high purchase price, but will "benefit" from Prop 13 if values go up higher and I thus don't have to pay hugely increased property tax.. But I do think things should be more even across the board.. NOT wealth distribution, but I would do away with subsidies, even ones I benefit from, like mortgage tax deduction -- that would simply get me to pay off my mortgage rather than make more investing the money, like I can do now.)

She should have been happy. There's typically no reason to want your property to increase in value unless you plan to sell it. It just increases your property taxes.

The post you're replying to was in Silicon Valley, obviously in CA. So the property tax is (mostly) based on the purchase price + some small growth allowed each year. That was due to Prop 13. So just because the value goes up, doesn't make the property tax go up... unless something happens to cause it to get reassessed (I think major improvements to the house can do this). But simply living in it doesn't.

(Some transfers, e.g. between some family members, don't cause reassessed value too..)

Well I agree with that. Doctors are well-paid, and deservedly so.

The national data at
http://www1.salary.com/Physici... gives $185,194 as the median.

For a job requiring SO much education, and them likely having huuuuuge college loans to pay back, that really doesn't seem like a *TON* of money. (Plus, they have to spend a lot on medical insurance, due to sue-happy people.)

Unless your app is MUCH MUCH cheaper than the other one, I'll choose the one with the better UI, which almost always would mean the native UI one.

he's got no excuse for not having his home and cars all paid for

I'd agree about the car, but disagree about the home.

ESPECIALLY with the low rates still available, you can relatively easily (even via dividends, and yes of course dividend paying stocks have risks too) make more than your "effective" mortgage rate, due to deductibility of mortgage interest.

I say this as someone who *hates* debt, and has paid cash for the two new cars I've bought in my life (though as much as I hate leases, some of the lowest end electric cars are now available for lease prices so low that that might have even made more sense).

Not tonight dear, I had a Tylenol.

(and you could go further down the rabbit hole and bring in the product tampering case.)

No, it's not the same thing.

"Wealth distribution" often is used to describe the "income gap" between the rich and the poor... That is, simply describing the situation as it is now.

"Wealth redistribution" is (mandated) Robin Hood-ing, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Pure capitalism optimizes to make money, and thats it. Worse, it tends to only look at what profit can be made in say the next year or so. Doing the kinds of things required to address the water shortage is likely to not be a money maker, at least not that quickly.

(I agree with you a tiny tiny bit regarding needing environmental laws to slightly temper the "pure capitalism" tendencies, if one is to dump their sewage in the river behind the factory.)

Yet Tesla & Space-X are both for profit companies, making big long term gambles on huge industry changing goals.

Also, while it's not the same, recently I've heard of the exact opposite, charity, being done quantitatively. Some people are finally looking at the investment/reward "payback" of various charities.

You mean wealth *redistribution*, right?

I haven't read *today's* news on the subject.

But about the original patent, everybody complains about the patents that someone got for "X _ON THE INTERNET_" when X was already patented. Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Shouldn't it work the other way, though? The originally patented idea DOES seem to me to be analogous to podcasting. I originally thought it sounded dumb when Carolla (whose podcast I listen to and enjoy), described it, but reading about it in more detail made it seem like a reasonably patentable idea *IF ANYTHING IS*.

I never read the comic, but I seem to remember the film being an average or maybe slightly below average of the big budget superhero movies that started (IMHO) with the Tobey Maguire SpiderMan.

I really don't know why everyone hates the movie.. Both of the recent Hulks were watchable too, yet most everyone seems to think at least the first one was horrible. (I watched the two near each other, I think on consecutive days, to compare.)

Why would it take multiple commits to fix a bug? If it's all in one project, I'd *hope* that was all in one commit. (I'm not saying in the real world it works out that way, but it would optimally be so.)

But if "deleting" a branch just hides it from whatever the equivalent of "svn ls BIGANNOYINGURL/branches", then great. (So if it just hides it, can you tell it to tell you the full list?)

Wow, I can't believe I'm defending svn....

But as far as I understand (and as far as I've been *using* it for several years now), there are not "specially named directories". There is a user-created convention of directory names and locations..

But underneath, there's NO difference between a tag directory and a branch directory.. (Which _annoys_ me, since I wish I could "lock" tag directories so I don't accidentally check into them, which I think I did once.. then undid of course..)

I guess this is a case of the grass is greener on _your own_ side of the fence.. Since git is reaaaaallly complex to me (and svn is complex compared to cvs, but I've MOSTLY gotten over that part).

Branch per bug? Why not just do the bug fix, and commit it after you've tested the fix? You end up with a ZILLION "pointless" branches after that. (You obviously can know what checkin did the fix in svn or cvs, so you still have the history of what the actual fix was, so can revert or modify it if necessary.)