You could fly from San Francisco (SFO) to Orlando (MCO) That's a pretty big search radius, if this story is true.
That doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is that Google is constantly changing things and if you don't like it, tough.
Because no black market is a bad thing, of course. If the market has demand for hired killers, for example, obviously they should exist.
(The is/should fallacy of free marketism is legitimately scary to me)
The black market often brings goods in demand to people where the government blocks them. During many war times, they were the only way people got around rations to get food and luxuries in a decent supply.
Drugs are often a black market. Yet, by and large marijuana is harmless, legal alcohol is not.
Markets have existed before governments rose. Markets are not scary, they are what make us inherently human. The exchange.
Your fearmongering is rather sad. Yes, criminal acts are possible. That doesn't come from the nature of the exchange, it comes from human nature.
Silly you, after mergers things downsize
and then executives cut themselves big bonuses
In other words: Welcome to the grind fest, where if it doesn't consume your entire life then you lose.
Or, by losing you win, but feel you didn't win, so keep trying and keep losing, until you are good enough to win and thus lose.
You could afford a 1541?
Most of us couldn't, cost more than the computer itself!
I upgraded to an Indus GT. =]
to pull out my old C64, dust it off and find my floppies.
to a happier and simpler time
Sounds complicated. Just burn them and their customers with excessive taxes.
And use those taxes to put the miners on welfare.
But in America, if it has value, it can be seized.
If it has value it can be embezzled.
Do I have to point out that a lot of military spending, including the labor force (soldiers and the like), isn't bringing the US Taxpayer all that great ROI?
There is spending for defense, and then there is our level of spending.
I'll get me coat.
No chance I'd go for this, not in a pig's eye. When will they talk about rolling out reasonably priced plans?
A fascinating study I read revealed hand-outs to the poorest people put that money into motion in the economy fastest - the poor don't save, they are usually living hand to mouth and can think of things they need to spend the money on.
Giving it to the rich doesn't result in quick infusions into the economy because they tend to sit on it, squirrel it away, not so much save or invest.
Yet we often hear how cutting taxes on the rich will boost the economy - nothing could be worse, to be frank.
They both love to spend money, just on different priorities.