You will almost never find a risk-free investment with a higher return than the interest rate on a loan. If you ignore the "risk-free" part, then you are equating a certain cost with an uncertain return, which is not correct. So the answer is not "always," but "it depends" on the usual factors - your time horizon, whether having more would help you as much as having less would hurt you, etc...

That reminds me of the old saw about the economist and his friend walking down the street. The friend spots a $20 bill on the street and says, "whoah, it's a $20 bill!" The economist, not even looking down, says "nope, if there were a $20 bill lying there, somebody would have picked it up already!"

According to the article the owner would have control over whether the phone gets wiped. My point, mainly, is that handsets are utterly dependent on infrastructure in any case, so the notion that this will give sweeping new powers to the government to suppress dissent are unfounded.

What you describe is probably exactly how the kill switch will be implemented. (How else would it be implemented?)

All the hyperbole in here is silly. Try not paying your phone bill and you will discover there is already a "kill switch." The questions at issue are administrative - how to share the list of stolen phones between carriers, set the criteria for putting a phone on the list, etc.

There's a digital edition too, but I presume that doesn't exclude the print edition, or your list will be empty.

Your point is only true in theory, but not in fact. Because of how it evolved, the Internet broke the culture of willingness to pay for journalism. This has turned out to have some bad consequences - namely a decline in quality, and the dominance of ad-supported information, and unthinking acceptance of the ad-supported press.

I do think the west, especially the US, is likely headed for a period of slower growth than we're accustomed to, or perhaps worse, stagnation or decline. This is because globalization (which many think is a dirty word, but I think is fantastic) is spreading the wealth over more of the human race.

This may seem to contradict the other current trend of concentration of capital, but historically they've gone hand in hand.

Not just historically, but currently. Inequality within nations is increasing, but inequality between nations is shrinking:

But the majority of the people on the planet live in countries where income disparities are bigger than they were a generation ago.

That does not mean the world as a whole has become more unequal. Global inequalityâ"the income gaps between all people on the planetâ"has begun to fall as poorer countries catch up with richer ones. Two French economists, FranÃois Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson, have calculated a âoeglobal Giniâ that measures the scale of income disparities among everyone in the world. Their index shows that global inequality rose in the 19th and 20th centuries because richer economies, on average, grew faster than poorer ones. Recently that pattern has reversed and global inequality has started to fall even as inequality within many countries has risen. By that measure, the planet as a whole is becoming a fairer place. But in a world of nation states it is inequality within countries that has political salience, and this special report will focus on that.

If you just have one or two W2s and 1099 I find paper to be the easiest. I tried the eFile system and it requires you to type in all the codes on the W2s which is torture. 45 minutes and I'm done.

I'm sure they've issued some updates since then.

Only on Testing and Unstable. Ha ha, that's a Debian joke.

Debian never does anything that really jumps out at you. The more time passes, the more I appreciate that and realize how valuable it is. Gentoo and Ubuntu were cool for a while, but here it is 2014 and I'm back with Debian, same as 10 or maybe even 15 years ago.

That's exactly the point of the article.

Of course, the minimum necessary requirements are actually irrelevant in a competitive environment where there are a surplus of over-qualified people.

Quadcopters don't have the range, speed, or flight duration for SAR.

So it's difficult to argue that his flights are more dangerous than what goes on every weekend at RC modeling sites throughout the United States

I can't fully agree with that. RC planes don't tend to fly out of range because they have to be in sight. A remotely piloted drone is not flown in light of sight, so it could more easily be controlled up to altitudes that might pose a danger to aircraft, or out of radio range.

Not saying they should have shut this guy down, or that taking 9 years to make rules is acceptable. A SAR drone is almost certainly flying where there isn't much risk of crashing into anybody anyways. But keeping signal strength down into valleys would really present some challenges.

How do you propose to separate them? Offense and defense are not really two separate things; if you can do one, you can do the other.

Check the list of agencies sponsoring the research. This is just a little game you have to play to do research in the US.