The key is to send your advertisement to the right person at their moment of greatest receptiveness. Suppose I walk out of a bar at 1AM. My phone knows where I am and what the local time is. Hours of operation data on most businesses is available online. I get a message "I see you have just closed Bob's Bar! Jane's Bar is open until 3AM and we are 2 blocks away! Click this button to put your phone into navigation mode".

Another example is a hot saturday morning. My phone knows location, weather data is easily looked up. I swipe my credit card at an auto parts store 4 miles away from my home at 9AM. A company connects these dots, and sends me an advertisement for 25% off iced coffee at a store on my way home. Will I take that offer? I'm probably starting (or in the middle of) some car repairs when I get home, during the hot day, so I probably would take that offer.

These are the right message for the right person at the right time. The likelihood that I will take their offer is quite high. I may even appreciate they told me about their bar. This is why companies are falling over themselves to get all the data they can about you. Their advertising budget ROI goes through the roof.

Oh yes, Ford are the losers all right. I just wish I had hung on to the Ford stock I bought at $1.50 instead of greedily selling it when it hit $4.

I don't buy this argument. A certain amount of cars are bought every year. If there is no GM, that number of cars would have been bought from other manufacturers. Everybody elses market share would increase to cover the % lost when GM exited the market. The other manufacturers' parts orders would increase to match, and the amount of orders for the suppliers and subsuppliers stays about the same. The same amount of cars bought -> the same amount of parts from suppliers are bought.

Similarly, the people suddenly unemployed by GM's collapse would be made up for by people being hired by Toyota USA, Mercedes USA, etc expanding their lines to make cars to fill the void left by GM. Assuming GM was basically about as efficient as the other carmakers*, the same number of people are employed. Certainly people would have refused to move or not be offered a job by those companies, but overall the same number of cars need to be made.

Arguably the economy was in the toilet at that time, and people in generally weren't buying as many cars as normal. However, removing or not removing a big carmaker from the economy wouldn't have changed that one bit.

*GM probably wasn't as efficient as the other carmakers, but that just points to their noncompetitiveness and a good reason to be rid of them anyhow.

And yet I have not heard of a company doling out computers with SSD drives in them. Myself and a department full of people waste 15 minutes in the morning waiting for laptops to boot up. We did the math and the $ amount of the lost productivity was staggering.

That's a pretty incredible statement given that in most markets the CRX did not come with a backseat. I tried sitting in the "not backseat" rear area of mine once, and there is no way any adult taller than 5 feet could sit there at all, let alone comfortably.

I did manage to fit half a dozen 9ft planks in the CRX with all the doors and the hatchback closed so there's that.

1) isn't an immigration policy issue, it is a work visa problem. While we might take issue with visas from other countries, the US and Canada really need to work on this. In reality, the system is tilted so the vast majority of cross-border workers are Canadians working in the US.

2) is a legitimate issue. I don't care who you are. I shelled out a lot of money and invested a ridiculous amount of time getting my wife into the country legally. If you want to be an illegal immigrant you take all the risks of that. No other country in the world has immigration policy like the people who use the term "undocumented" propose. The US is already one of the most open countries in the world with our "born in US = citizen" policy.

3) That is unfortunate, if it was truly a mixup perhaps they should have gotten a good lawyer. Or maybe it wasn't a mixup and they just told you that as a sob story so you wouldn't charge them lease-breaking fees.

Who could have predicted that the infection rates of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella would increase when people stopped getting their MMR vaccine?

If most people come to the conclusion that Bitcoin is too volatile for them to complete monetary transactions with, they effectively become beanie babies. The value becomes zilch and everyone who holds Bitcoin when that happens walks away with nothing. Sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme to me.

People have argued that when Bitcoin has more volume, the volatility will decrease. There is not a shred of evidence to support that. Bitcoin has been gaining volume for the last couple of years, and if anything, it is more volatile than ever.

Involving accountants and lawyers in the process of building power plants is a necessity. Even if you ARE Bill Gates, you can't just go down to the bank and ask for 2 Billion dollars to build a power plant. They want; they HAVE to see your business plan, your financial calculations, guarantees from the grid operator that they will purchase your power, etc. They require you to set up all of your contracts to buy boilers, turbines, and cooling systems with airtight contracts. We signed a contract to sell a steam turbine a couple of weeks ago which ran to almost 1100 pages. Every possibility for project snags, supplier bankruptcy, catastrophic acts of God, etc needs to be spelled out in detail. The piles of money involved are so large that anything less would be irresponsible and reckless.

I like it that way. Keeps out the riffraff looking for a quick path to a good salary. Look at what happened to IT (90's boom) and more recently Lawyers in the US. There is also a glut of accountants but the tax code gets bigger every year so that isn't a problem- yet.

It isn't a gamble, it is a hedge. Nobody knows for sure what the future will bring. To say that we will in 20 years we will use only natural gas, wind, and solar is a fool's bet. Betting on "future magic solution" is even worse. Planning now for a diversified energy mix in the future isn't just a good idea, it is the safest idea.

But the Japanese do not fully acknowledge what they did in the war and a lot of the history is not taught to the young. This contrasts with Germany which basically acknowledged what was done and set about purging it from society.

The end result is the same. Germany had a fanatical idealogy focused on Hitler, ethnic purity and the Fatherland. When he was out of the picture and the country clearly was never going to win, it became relatively easy to convince everyone to throw out all the old flags and make that idealogy a crime. Ethnic purity is just not acceptable. They needed to shove that all under the rug.

Japan had a fanatical idealogy focused on honor, empire-building, and the Emperor. The Emperor lost his divine power and the US planted a democratic constitution and government, and prohibited Japan from having an offensive military. But today, they still have the Emperor, a code of honor which is nonviolent now but still around, and they still build their empire in the Pacific and elsewhere (economically). They don't need to make their old ideology a crime because they can still achieve it in different, internationally-acceptable, ways. They didn't need to purge their idealogy completely because once nonviolent boundaries were attached, it wasn't a problem anymore.

Transportation is a problem, one which is somewhat tied to security. A floating facility makes sense because you only have to transport the chemicals to the coast. Securing such a facility is easier as well.

Both are important. Otherwise other nations can spy on US citizens, and then just report the results to the US government. It already happens.

The Moto G sells for $179 unlocked with no contract. It might not be as powerful as the Nexus 5 but it is 95% of the way there for most people. Chinese devices with similar specs are in the $140-$170 range on Aliexpress. I don't see how Motorola is making much of a profit on the G either. I don't see it as being "much more interesting".

Android phones are based on a high volume, low profit model. Apple is working under a high profit model. Neither is wrong but if I want a phone that isn't overpriced, I'm not going to buy the Apple one.