exactly. the study indicates a typical subject has 5 non-average months. If 2 months are above-average due to extra paycheques and the regular months aren't skewed lower by those 2 months, then some other factor(s) affects average salary (for better or worse) even more significantly than an "extra" paycheque. that's two of the points they're trying to make: people have hard time budgeting for these variances and those most affected tend to be double-whammied by having fewest options/resources to compensate

fair point if that's not accounted for in their calculations, but if those 2 months are high enough to be 25+% above their average income, what about the 3 months (on average) where they are 25+% below their average income? There's more to it than just 2 months of extra paycheck, assuming the extra paycheck is even driving the study's results in the first place.

look again: his approval rating is roughly the same. his disapproval rating is up (worse) 10% in that time. approx half of the undecideds have come off the fence and none in his favour. none of the many real or perceived gaffes caused a spike that could maybe be smoothed over, rather the ongoing cumulative effect of the succession of gaffes is gaining momentum against him. less than a month is a small sample size, but it would appear that he isn't going to get much of a "100 days" post-election honeymoon period with the voters

Law Enforcement seems to be exempt from any laws that inconvenience them....getting a court order was only an attempt at expedience

Of course the FBI & the DOJ will prosecute their 3rd party helpers to the fullest extent possible for DMCA violations, right? I mean that iPhone didn't just unencrypt itself...

1) Pollution is bad mmmkay, kids?

2) Burning fossil fuels creates pollution

3) Don't believe 1) & 2)? breathe deeply off the exhaust pipe of your car long term and see what happens to your health

4) Therefore burning fossil fuels is bad and we don't have to bring climate into the equation

5) Profit?!

for clarity, I guess RIAA doesn't treat mega acts as loss leaders, rather, the individual label treats the artist(s) as a loss leader

On the one hand, Apple oughtta just suck up the 3 months as product/service investment and still make the royalty payouts, but the reality is that, given their track record, I'd be cheering for them as an artist as Apple's success would eventually be better for me in the long run anyway.

The *real* reality is that no artists makes any real money off physical album sales, downloads or streaming except the rare mega-acts like Metallica, U2, and presumably TS which the RIAA treat as loss-leaders, so Apple paying or not for first 3 months is moot to almost all signed acts, never mind indies

bank safe deposit box. $60/yr. Perfect size for 3 NAS drives....so 9-12 TB and improving...back everything up quarterly, monthly, weekly...whatever you need. house burns down, you have your safe deposit box. bank burns down, create new copies from home for new bank. house and bank burn down? probably the apocalypse and you're not that worried about storage anymore

"tangible goods" may be necessarily broad to limit actual criminals' ability to do an end-run around whatever limits S-O sets. Likewise for RICO, PATRIOT Act, etc. The problem isn't in how you use them to *catch* criminals, the problem is how you can destroy someone's life for committing a petty crime, or worse, punish an innocent because the law is so powerful that the accused can't properly mount a defense or cops a plea to avoid even larger sentence.

Should the captain and/or crew go to jail? Probably; destruction of evidence needs to carry a serious punishment. Is 20 years an appropriate punishment? Certainly not compared to the crimes the 20-yr option was intended to prosecute.

tl;dr

If these laws are necessarily broad, then they need limitations as to when the full weight of punishment is appropriate.

Seriously? 150+ comments and no one posts that the first "online murder" will be accompanied by a "First!!" comment when it happens?