Yes, but the post you are responding to is comparing soda levels of HFCS (and artificial sweeteners) to coffee.

I don't buy that HFCS is particularly bad, but I am willing to be the sugar calories in a self-sugared (or non-sugared even, there was no implication of over-sweet coffee) are far lower than red-bull or soda.

I think you can put your work in the public domain, also there are licenses such as the WTFPL, also, a license like CC without the riders should work too i think.

And if you want to make a political statement, add a rant before the license, something like damn those capitalist pigs, I shouldn't have to do this.

Mine ranges from 3k-6k, I'm an adult too!.

My minutes have dropped from 2k -> 200 in the last 5 years, as my messages went up from 30.

Though technically probably only approx 50% of these are me sending, and another 50% are me receiving. Also though, I'm not counting my Google Voice texts (1100 incoming this month, mostly from Canada, can't speak to outgoing). Google voice breaks at 160 characters though, so it probably slightly over-estimates.

I work away from home a lot, I like to keep in touch with those close to me, and I like to do it without interrupting or trapping them (and them the same, thus the drop in phone minutes).

Part of why they are broke is that they are funding states run by the other party, but they are also incompetent as you imply.

*ad, short for advertisement

Shouldn't have been Lena?

It'd be interesting to see:
1) how much dollar savings/account holder was saved in europe and asia (couldn't deduce it at a glance), and what the actual cost of those pads are (my friend pays $15 (10 pounds) for one, and has lost it more than once. Also, the ability to not bank if she leaves her purse at a friends for a day or two is an additional annoyance).

If fraud is costing the average account holder less than $20/year, I don't like the idea of giving the banks another way to charge fees...

According to the first paragraph in my link there's 26,000,000 mobile bank users in the US (I'm using this, the lowest possible valid number of account holders for this, as fewer people for same fraud means more fraud/person). I got this number by assuming 200,000,000 total account holders (108,000,000 x 2 approximated, as 108,000,000 was 46%, and currently 13% use mobile banking). If we take the US total fraud (approx .5 of 7.6 billion) and the 26 million numbers, we get about $136 per a mobile account holder, if we use the 200,000,000 number (total account holders) we get $17/account holder.

At $136/account holder it's probably worth it, at $17 it's probably not (as you mentioned the largest fraud segment would not be prevented). I think the fact that US banks haven't implemented it on their own says a lot about the over-all cost to value ratio, keep in mind, that in the IS at least, the banks eat almost all of the fraud.

note, this assumes 3.8 Billion in US bank fraud, if it was in the same ballpark of that 86 million number to be fixed I'd say no way.

Links:
http://www.ibtimes.com/mobile-banking-rise-46-us-bank-account-holders-use-service-2017-report-747697
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/credit-debit-card-fraud-more-common-banks-lose-ground-hackers_n_994690.html

Would it be worth the expense?

what's the average cost/account holder of breaches? Is it really more than the $15 or so / year my Scottish spends on keypads?

Unless they collect their links from emails tagged as phishing...

Yes, It's actually way more skill than chance, but the fact that some pieces are a better draw than others tilts it more towards chance than if they were all equivalent.

Still, It's more accurately a game of skill and I'm a shithead...

OMG, unfair advantage in a game of chance. This is awful!

Lincity even more (except for getting things done)

I asked where 300 in your statement

came from. You're answer shows at least double that number. I remain curious where the number 300 came from.

I DO recognize that assault weapons are a red herring, I also want the strongest evidence possible to support that. The legal definition of assault weapon used by the us government extends to shotguns and pistols.

I'm pretty sure that magazine size goes beyond cosmetic too, though guns with standard magazines can meet the definition.

Cute, but no. Substantial (even insubstantial) parts count. See sampling in music.