Lol.. what you miss could fill a novel.

First, no one said the company was the sum of employee cost. If the company doesn't turn a profit, there will be no employee cost because it will not be in business. If the subsidies are the reason the company is making a profit and still open, then it is entirely reasonable to connect the subsidies to their pay.

Second the only thing not logical is your thinking. Sure they could get a job somewhere else. But that ignores the fact that they wouldn't be working for that company. It also ignores the fact that unemployment is not zero. Their reemployment elsewhere would either displace another worker if all things otherwise was the same or some other company would expand due to that company no longer being in business. That means they are not employed or the subsidies are depressing other businesses.

The rest of your post misses the fact that if all other costs caused them to not be profitable enough to stay in business without the subsidies, the jobs would only exist because of the subsidies. Again it is completely reasonable to connect them.

It is not a complicated process at all. If the company can not make money without the subsidies, it no longer exists. Those jobs no longer exist if they were even created in the first place. You can try to hide or ignore that all you want but it doesn't change anything.

Sure it does. The cost of the employees is not limited to their salaries. They would not be employed if the business didn't make some sort of economic sense and have work to do and that seems to be reliant on the subsidies.

Interesting. . You justify waste by pointing out waste. I bet your household budget is all rosey and you actually believe buying something you will never use because it's 30% off is saving you money.

Lol.. if that was all, you might have a point. Why do you believe the subsidies have stopped and no more will occure over the life of the company?

And that comes to what, over $360,000 per employee?

Here is the problem. Most of this subsidy money is not given to anyone or any companies. It is a waiver of future costs that wouldn't likely be collected anyways. Some is in the format of direct payment but those are generally to share the costs of getting people and companies to do what they wouldn't do already. So its pointless to really argue about it outside of whether we want someone or companies to act in certain ways while remaining free people.

Yes, you certainly have not tried to make make it secrete and it would have been considerably harder if you tried but not impossible because you are somewhat successful in life. Well, what i would consider successful anyways.

I was just wanting to make a point. I live about 3000 miles from you (no, not in florida either..lol.) and have no desire to go to jail over someone i don't even know so don't take anything i've done as a threat or anything. Government already collects substantial amounts of information and this data mining isn't limited to backwards idiots far away from us. It's right in our backyards sometimes without us even realizing it. Kids most of all probably do not understand just how much information they are giving away. Even well educated and successful adults don't realize it sometimes. Its even worse when you understand espionage tactics and information/inteligence gathering. The US army had a bunch of training films during WWII about how this is done. I foget the nae of the series, but it was three or four films long about interrogating prisoners who didn't say anything obvious but gave all sorts of information away. At the end, it listed all the information gathered and it was obvious how it was gathered in hindsight but completely obfuscated it practice. This is what happens with online presence being so persistent and accessible. Schools or government datamining social media should be scary even if we don't think we are doing anything wrong/illegal.

I'm not going to out you any further than the county you live in. I could, you have plastered it all over the web. But I don't see the point in it. There are not 20 glendales in ventura county. I can tell that you live in a condo with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms near near Heritage Park. 805 should mean something to you as should 484.

I think your missing the point though. It wasn't that I could find you, it's that people do not realize how much they are giving away to strangers and a school district near you is just as brazen about collecting this information or spying as orange county florida is. In other words, there are idiots all around us and if we are not careful, we might find ourselves sucked in with them.

If you want, I can post everything I know about you and tell you where I found it. You would likely think it is obvious afterwards. I just don't think it's wise to do so.

An author's copyrights can be assigned or transferred to a third party. This leaves the author with only the same rights as any member of the general public. (There are a few narrow exceptions, but nothing that would prevent the possibility of an author infringing on the copyright of a work he created)

It's also possible for a person who prepares a work to not be considered the author. This is the case for works made for hire.

And of course copyright isn't mandatory, though that just leads to works being in the public domain, so at least there's no danger of infringement there.

You shouldn't be that glad. Glendale school district did this same thing and that is near where you live. It actually should be more near to ventura county since glendale is in los angeles county than orange county would be.

http://snaptrends.com/schools-...

Oh, and no, we do not know each other, I just spent about 5 minutes scraping some information from the web to determine your approx location. Well, in case you were wondering that is.

However, bear in mind that copyright only applies to original material, not to pre-existing material. A review which includes a quote is copyrightable, but the new copyright for the review only covers the portion original to the reviewer; the material quoted is only covered by the copyright of the work the quotes are drawn from.

17 USC 103(b):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We don't have Plato's original manuscripts. Those copies have sure come in handy. We don't have Caesers' De Bella Gallico, yet those copies are nice. I can list hundreds of examples.

Don't underestimate the importance of copies.

Nobody teaches you how to handle 100,000,000 simultaneous user requests. Throwing more and more hardware at it is what you cannot escape when dealing with tens of millions of users a second. At least Google is not a bank, where things really need to be synchronized across accounts and be perfectly transactional. It doesn't matter to Google that there are no transactions. A piece of data presented to a user in the USA may be different than the one presented to a user in Japan, but it isaybe an answer to the same question, but the data did not propagate all the way everywhere yet. Even so, it is quite a challenge to deal with hundreds of millions of users daily and tens or hindreds of millions concurrent user requests a second. They are doing it really well too. I can only imagine the massive problems that need to be solved. It is jarring. Good stuff.

So I read that this problem dates back to 1988 (so they say). Reminds me of a two envelope joke. A president steps down due to scandals, gives his replacement 2 envelopes. Tells him to open the first one when there is the first serious problem he cannot handle and the second one in case of another problem.

The replacement starts on the job, eventually there is a serious political problem he cannot solve. He opens the first envelope and it says: blame everything on the previous guy. So he does and the problem goes away. Later there is another problem that cannot be solved, the guy opens the second envelope and in says: prepare 2 envelopes.

I think somebody opened the first envelope.

Odd that Wakefield's co-author, accused of the same things, had his indictment reversed on appeal. Wakefield did not have malpractice insurance, and his appeal was denied.

And, of course, the oft-quoted Danish study was conducted by a researcher now under indictment for fraud: Paul Thorsen.