And just to really finalize these toy numbers now that I know a few more things, FB currently has 2.14B shares, with cash on hand of about $8B. This yields $8/2.14 = $3.74/sh book value, again not counting other company assets such as IP. Thus a more proper stock value would be $7.43 (from parent post) + $3.74 = $11.17/sh.

I've been wondering what a fair value is -- *assuming* that FB is worth investing in at all, which is dubious at this point. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it is.

At IPO, the $38 was 107 times their annual earning, so that's roughly $0.35/share value, not counting their assets, IP, etc. Last I calculated, Apple had a P/E of 17, which is surprisingly low for a "hot tech property", but Apple has the earnings to fully support their valuation. During the past 3 years, FB has increased their revenues by 71% annually, or increasing it fivefold in this time (5x = 1.71^3). While I don't think that growth rate will continue, I do think it warrants a slightly higher P/E valuation of 20-25. Let's be generous and give 25. That in turn gives a valuation of $0.35*25 = $8.75/sh. No doubt these are hand-wavey arbitrary numbers here...but not unreasonable.

Last, my final adjustment is simply a value proposition. If I believe $8.75/sh is worth it (AND if their business model matures), then I need a buffer for a profit, at least 15%. So, my buy-in price is (1-0.15)*8.75 = $7.43.

It's been interesting to compare the two. I've been reading the books and am halfway through book 5, and watching the series. They've fabricated things for more skin-time (such as the prostitute Roz in the HBO story, not in the book), and switched things around. Another embellishment in the HBO story, purely for shock value, was when Joffrey forced the whore in his bed to beat the other whore viciously. Most of the "simpler" changes are to make it simply more interesting to watch, and on HBO that means more tits, usually. These are not substantive changes to the storyline, however.

More questionable changes DO change the storyline. I don't think we'll know if it was for TV adaptation, or if the edits simplify the storyline, or what until much later. For example, one was last week's (?) episode where Lord Tywin tells his cupbearer (Arya) of the difference between saying m'lord and my lord. There are two things different in that scene: (1) in the book, Arya is never Tywin's cupbearer at Harrenhal, and (2), the m'lord/my lord conversation takes place much later, in book 5, between Lord Bolton and Reek. So this first change could bring huge implications; for instance, while Arya was serving, Littlefinger recognizes her but it's not yet known if he reveals or uses this information elsewhere, which would be very different from the book.

Do a search for "Crazy Horst" on vimeo. I think this is the person you are mentioning.

For instance, watch his "Catch me if you can" video.

Yeah, the link above is from youtube, but search on vimeo where most of his videos are.

+2 that.

The building complexity is compounded also by a project's over-specification of dependencies. That is, instead of just requiring FooLib x.y, they are requiring x.y.z. Part of the problem here is that projects use dotted-version notation inconsistently. I would never expect an API change with a .z change, and I would only expect an API change to add functionality with a .y change but never a break in current code. A change in major version means anything goes. Many projects follow this. I wish I had kept notes of those I've run into that do not.

Several years ago I was building a couple projects on Linux, and after downloading all the packages that weren't already on the system, I got things built. It was extremely time consuming, but it worked. Whatever happiness I had was soon vanquished because another program I wanted to use required one of the same libraries but with a different .z version, which, in some case, could cause a huge rippling of library do-overs. Ridiculous.

As a related aside, one thing I would like to see is a migration of projects away from autoconf tools. I've been using cmake for over a year now to build cross-platform tools and it does everything autoconf could clumsily do, and better. It is truly a better tool for this job.

There are rules for RC aircraft that boil down to keeping within line of sight, and under 400ft agl. The article mentions the 400ft altitude limit.

The growing disagreements between drone enthusiasts and entities such as the FAA and LA's motion picture unions stem from the commercial use of hobby-grade drones to film real estate, agricultural lands, etc. LA's movie unions don't want small operations filming real estate because they believe that if there's any filming around Hollywood, they better damn well get it. That's why LAPD is involved: the unions pushed for the city ordinance.

For individuals, the policy is simply keep it within sight and under 400ft.

+1 Bleak

ten bleaks

Well, why shouldn't he? If the house is paid for, why should the government become a de facto landlord? That is, even after you pay off your house, you owe the government property tax which you can think of as variable annual rent. As I wrote elsewhere today, taxes based on nebulous valuations, determined by a representative of government whose interests are not aligned with your own, are wrong.

And many of us think that property tax is a total scam. As you said, it's based on fluctuating opinion, rather than a verifiable value. I believe this is wrong, but I also don't expect any changes in my state's tax code to address it. Similarly, I don't think stocks should be taxed on their momentary value, either.

Taxation when gains are realized (that is, when property is sold for more than it was purchased for) is the only sensible way to implement taxes. At that moment of sale, the value is known (agreed to by buyer and seller), and is a concrete valuation for tax purposes. This is why stocks taxed as they are today (time of sale, or time of grant for equity-as-income) is fair, while property taxes on homes are wrong. My property tax should be based on the value of the house when I bought it, and not determined by an auditor with an interest not aligned with mine.

I'm not arguing for zero taxes because of course we must fund the needs of society. But taxing a ghost of a value is wrong.

The grove of trees behind the plant is where it appears to source from. The creek upstream (left) looks normal, and downstream of the trees looks bloodied. The Trinity river isn't far away, and at the mouth of the creek it is very red.

No UAV needed for this one. Had anyone looked in Google's imagery and known that location was a meat packing plant, the conclusion would be simple.