come from this part : "Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same (my emphasis).

While the study was not designed to test that hypothesis, it provides evidence that weight change is affected by factors other than caloric intake, at least in rats. This study is thus a serious blow to the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" paradigm of obesity research.

Seems like Gary Taubes was right all along.

You can put it the way you want, my math is correct.

So we agree then

Sounds nice enough, unfortunately it doesn't add up. Let me show you with your example.

Option A : pay the mortgage, don't pay $1000 in interest. In your pockets : $0

Option B : don't pay the mortgage, invest the principal in some revenue generating activity that is equal to the interest rate on the mortgage (that's the part you forgot about). In your pockets : -$1000 in interest + $1000 in revenue + $250 in tax deductions = $250.

Clearly you win by not paying your mortgage if only looking at the numbers. IRL it's often best to mix low-risk (e.g. paying off the mortgage) with higher-risk (e.g. stock market investments), and other non-financial considerations obviously differ for each person. So paying off your mortgage as fast as possible is not necessarily a bad option in practice, although it is financially not the "right" answer.

What? TFS is about Yahoo actually censoring adult search results. The question of how successful they are is not especially relevant. They're able to filter at least some results; anyone who has had to deal with the safe search filters at Yahoo of Google can agree that they do work a great majority of the time. So like I said, they can't "claim that filtering porn is infeasible".

Well it's obviously feasible if they're actually doing it.

Gold today sells for $1,192 per once, or more than $40,000 per kg. Sure gold is "heavy", but you need much less to hide a few thousand dollars.

Only if the regulators are as literal as you are applying the law. I'm sure screening applicants for aptitude to travel is legal, and people with families happen to be less apt for this particular, required-for-the-job task.

Yeah... which is exactly what I said in the rest of my (unquoted) comment...

Variable costs !- total costs. Just because a cost has already occurred (dvd printing or automating your warehouse) doesn't mean the company should not pass it to its customers. How else are they supposed to recoup these costs? Pricing should account for total costs in the long term.

I think in this situation, the major argument against charging s&h costs is that customers have already paid for them when buying Vista, when what they really wanted (and were promised) in the first place was 7.

Thing is, the customers in question here think they've already bought Windows 7. They got a computer with Vista, which they don't want, with a promise of a free upgrade. They don't care what shipping and handling cost the retailers, they've already had to live with Vista for 3 months and now can finally get what they really paid for in the first place.

Sure they'll pay the fee. Better pay 17$ than losing your 300$ purchase, yet it's still a huge PITA.

Markets have a way to circumvent these monopolies. It's called innovation. Wanna bet that 20 million dissatisfied broadband Internet customers are a tremendous incentive for smaller companies to offer a wireless Internet solution? Or something new altogether? Investment in alternative technologies will without a doubt increase if Bell and Telus don't allow competitors to have their slice of profits.

What, Google aren't even releasing plug-ins for their own browser first? What kind of endorsement is that?

If I take the bet and you win, make sure to report the gain on your tax return.

For the quantitative aspect of the situation, you should examine their offer and try to figure out how they came to this figure. What is it in your company that can make them money? What synergies would you provide them? Do they have a solid marketing team to sell your product? What can they do that you can't, and what can you do that they can't? That way you'll have an idea if their offer is reasonable.

Now, let's reverse the question. How do you value your own company? Do you have the resources and know-how to make it into a $5M company? $100M? You've worked hard up to this point, but this is in the past now. Are you confident enough that you'll be able to get to a point where you actually make good profit?

Now the important point is that if they value your company higher than you do, you should sell. Period. The fact that they are offering something for your company is no guarantee that you'll be able to make nearly as much on your own. They might be willing to give you a lot because you're worth a lot to them. You might not be worth so much without outside help.

As you mentionned, money is but one factor in your decision. Still I hope this helps a little...