Really? 25% is ridiculous? The price has been stable for nine years. So, that's a 2.5% increase/year. Quite a bit less than the annualized increase in gas costs (which have got to be have a significant correlation to shipping costs).
Would love to see the math behind this. Do you have a source?
The article keeps trying to compare GDP with employment. GDP has been increasing but yet unemployment is stuck at about 7%.
Unemployment peaked at 10% in October of 2009. It's now down to 6.6%, down 130bps in the last year. Still too high, but it has been declining steadily. This chart doesn't meet my definition of "stuck."
[a national gun registry] has logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.
Disagree with you here. A national gun registry WOULD be useful for preventing gun violence. It might not be useful enough to justify the intrusion and confiscation risk, but it would be useful. How? By enabling law enforcement to go after the supply chain that gets guns into the hands of criminals. Typically, guns that end up in the hands of criminals (where we all agree they shouldn't be) were legally purchased initially, but then sold on (illegally) to a criminal. If law enforcement were able to say "hey, we seized seven guns last month from criminals that were all purchased by John XYZ," that would allow them to go after illegal distributors like John XYZ, and reduce the ease with which criminals can obtain guns.
Would it be perfect? Of course not, some guns would still end up in criminal hands through theft, etc. Would it be helpful? Definitely. Would it be worth the confiscation risk you cite? That's a debatable issue. I believe it would be, you clearly differ with me on that.
As I said, the fact that someone is trying to avoid a background check isn't per se an indication that the sale would be illegal, but it does raise the risk for the seller.
True, but it's definitely NOT legal to sell a gun to somebody you know, or can reasonably be expected to know, can't legally buy one. So, if your buyer says "I'm a convicted felon," definitely not legal. If your buyer says "you're not going to require a background check, are you?" you're on very shaky ground, since that's very close to an admission that, were there to BE a background check, the buyer wouldn't pass. Remember, willful blindness isn't a defense.
Media leaks legislation?
When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?
I guess the answer depends on what side of the Mason Dixon line you live on.
And, for those on the South side of the line, the color of your skin.
Even if we assume that Brown's lawyers don't prevail in their arguments, the scenario you're discussing wouldn't be illegal under the statute, which requires that you "knowingly" link to the content. So, if you linked to www.slashdot.org/storyxyz, and, at some point, somebody replaced storyxyz with (say) a long list of stolen credit card numbers, you wouldn't be liable, so long as, if you discovered the content had changed, you removed the link.
regular brewed coffee costs less than ten cents a cup. even if you make half a pot and only drink one cup, it's still cheaper than k-cups.
Certainly. In terms of cost/cup:
Regular coffee at home Keurig Dunkin Starbucks.
I can't imagine the people using Keurigs are actually saving any money over just going to a place like Dunkin' Donuts.
Keurig machine is about $120. The pods are about $0.65 each (less if you buy in bulk, or on sale, etc.). Small coffee at DD is $1.49. So, you're saving about $0.85/cup. You cover the cost of the machine after about 140 cups, so you definitely are saving money, even more if you're comparing to buying at Starbucks.
Remember, he settled too. If he had been that sure of his chances of success (and/or that he'd get a lot more if he went to trial), he wouldn't have.
So, you'd be fine with everyone knowing how much you paid for your car? How about how much you're paying your doctor, and for what? These are all contracts, after all.
OK, fine. I was being (a bit) cute, using a term a Canadian friend had used at one point. Never mind. Just replace "USicans" in my post with Americans.
Put it on the market, and some people will abuse it and OD on it. Keep it off the market, and some people will suffer extreme pain needlessly. Honestly, I don't envy the FDA team that has to make this call.
Very true, but so what? The price of the product is $10. If I pay cash, it costs me $10. If I pay with a credit card, it costs me $9.80.
I suppose, in theory, if everyone stopped using credit cards, prices might come down somewhat, but I really doubt they'd come down enough to completely offset the benefit I get for paying with a credit card - a bit portion of the savings would be captured by the merchant.