Why can't I make it "try again" on a book that it thinks I have that is in the 80k books you have some rights / discounts on?
This, however, is clearly a post about business models and the economy, or I assume it is, tl;dr The business side of technology is irrelevant to my interests, business is just a bad reality TV show.
I am an economist and this drivel is more like, "what I think I recall based on having taken econ classes a long time ago" than it is about economics or business. I would never endorse any of the above logic attributed to economists, with the possible exception of the first day Apple pricing which I would talk about simply in a college class even though actual economists know full well why a company might use that pricing model.
News flash: what's taught in college economics is known to not be correct, it's just part of a liberal arts education.
please enable your microphone
Not necessary on an Andriod phone where FB already has access to use the microphone without telling you--and you can't disable this without root.
just not the kind of control that the majority of Americans desire
I'm not so sure. I think the President (who ever that is) typically wants to keep the country safe and the NSA wants to do the same and they think that they are doing it correctly. I think people want the to be safe and it's tough as the person who is actually President to cut off the means employed by the NSA and hope that you are correct and the ends will still be there knowing that if there were an attack it could easily be your decision that allowed it and all it's nasty side effects.
All that said, I'd personally like more court involvement. In particular, I see no reason the judicial process couldn't happen in a classified arena. If the lawyers had security clearances and all judges already do, then I see no reason they couldn't just have closed proceedings without juries, but at least have some oversight from an outside body.
Another viable option for checks would be an Inspector General, covered by the Inspector General act and so truly independent from the agency itself, who could issue reports to the President and Congress.
sorry, point being, we can all afford computers.
Perhaps, but it was just a news letter. Anyways, the least expensive house in bounds for the school would be about $400,000 (and that would be a 1 BR condo that is boarded up and has a high association fee).
There is still a unique identifier for the customer, otherwise there would be no way to report the transaction to the bank and actually get the money.
uh, except the unique transaction number?
I knew someone who worked for a marketing firm and he said, "we either track your purchases through your loyalty card or your CC number, it's your choice if you save the money or not." Perhaps they store a hash of the CC number, but it's a unique key for you, rest assured.
Any system that relies on a number that you cannot hide remaining private is doomed to failure. But that's exactly what we have.
Try Discover or AmEx. They both own their own networks and so the website is current almost instantly. Visa is owned by no bank, so everybody has to wait to get the info. This also lets Discover and AmEx find fraudulent charges much faster and alert you to them right away.
I switched when I had a friend get their debit card stolen. She said the cops pointed out to her that if you only use CC, then while you're in the dispute process you have all your money whereas if you use a debit card, somebody else has your money while your in the dispute process. It's a big fucking deal when it's time to pay your rent/mortgage.
I felt that way until my child's teacher decided FB was the right way to disseminate information about classroom activities.
I walk my children to school past a "When Children Are Present" sing. I've never seen a single driver obey the lower speed limit. So if that's appropriate action, then yes, I'll bet it can do that. I'd take just obeying the posted normal limit.
Cold, I don't consider part c plans (your first link) to be fraudulent but I'm amazed to see a Republican back plans that have these characteristics:
* Part C plans cost 15% more than Medicare
* There is no evidence that Part C plans are better than Medicare
Part C could have been interesting if the first line was different. What if they cost 10% less and there wasn't evidence that medicare was better? Hmm, maybe? But the Republicans didn't set them up that way. They set them up to cost more. The best thing that can be said about them is that they offered free health club memberships. But then we'd have a Republican claiming that the government should be spending $1,500 / year to get seniors health club memberships. Are you seriously going to say that?
The fraud prevention has to do with Medicare fraud being rampant. The law was setup, by congress, so that providers had a right to participate in the programs. So Medicare would shutdown a fraudulent biller and they could apply to be covered the next day. Then, by law, Medicare would have to accept them into the program (it was a right). Now, Medicare has more power to prevent this type of fraud. This is a good thing. Don't you agree?
I'm unaware of the right abandoning Obamacare. It's a great idea. It used to be that if you wanted to start a business or continue to run a small business, you would have to go find health insurance on a market that would discriminate harshly against you. Now, you go to one big market and get good rates. So small businesses are easier to open and more affordable to open. It's really just trying to prevent a Democrat from getting credit for something good that is making the right hate Obamacare, not the policy, which is great.
It was a European trainer jet.