Bullshit. The price of a product is based on how much people are willing to pay for it. That's it. Nothing more. It has fuck-all to do with the wage being paid to a menial worker.

If Starbucks raised their minimum wage to $15/hour, the price of everything would stay exactly the same, and the owners of Starbucks would make .16 on the dollar per fiscal year instead of the current .18 - that's the only difference. Boo-fucking-hoo.

All of this, of course, has zero to do with my post that you responded to, which dealt with the odds of each candidate winning, which is directly based on how much bettors are putting on each candidate to win. In other words, anyone can spout a stupid opinion, but if you asked them to actually bet real money on who they'd pick to win, they might suddenly not be so confident. However, looking at who actual bettors put their money on has been reasonably accurate in the past.

Which has fuck-all to do with candidates raising money. How you got there is a mystery to me. Poor reading comprehension, I suspect, which makes your writing automatically worthless.

The point is that Google doesn't need all the Apple iPhone users to use Google maps. There's millions of them that do. That's a big enough sample size to pretty much know, statistically, where iPhone users are going. Much as you'd like to believe that you're important enough for them to want to know where YOU are, you're not. They just want the trends. They have that.

You should probably read up on the differences between description and prescription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It does, actually. In fact, the shifting spelling of that word has already entered the spelling that you don't like into the dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigamarole

Definition of RIGAMAROLE: variant of rigmarole

Lots of people on iPhones use Google Maps.

If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.

None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.

www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Weird, you sound just like that guy who yells at kids to get off his lawn and tells everyone that music and movies were much better back in your day.

Then stop reading Slashdot. You'll be missed.

Personally, I liked the video.

Depends if you're talking to people over or under the age of 45.

Liar.

http://www.news10.net/story/we...

You act as if there's only "honest" and "dishonest" and the line between that black-and-white in this case is universally agreed upon by everyone. Surely you know that's ridiculous.

In the list of fraudelent advertising I've seen in just the past year, ranked by how offensive they are, I'm not sure the Wikipedia appeals for money would even make the top 1000.

Man I wish I had mod points. Brilliant post.

As Homer Simpson said, "It's funny because it's true!"

Jimmy Wales is worth an estimated $1 million. He could probably afford to buy a nice 30-foot sailboat; bigger if he planned to live on it exclusively.