I know it's not as easy as that, but there's something odd about the situation you're describing.
505 karma · joined May 29, 2012
I know it's not as easy as that, but there's something odd about the situation you're describing.
I see that you're bringing up NIMBY, but that should be the area to focus on instead of somehow trying to control the underlying problem through things like rent control.
I personally see the California High Speed Rail system as an interesting option there. If they offer regular rail service and I can reach my work in Silicon Valley within 1 hour then I would consider moving out of Silicon Valley. Especially so if the city is interesting or becomes interesting through the increasing number of people moving there and if they offer Wifi on the train so that I could even start working there.
However, if all states have a 10$ minimum wage then there's no easy substitute, except for going to another country, but that's much more complex.
him is the temp who trained her
The market share of Windows Phone 8 is extremely small and doesn't seem to pick up.
The PC market is shrinking extremely and many analysts now point to Windows 8 as one of the reasons behind that. You can point to a 10 minute learning curve and while I agree that the new Windows interface is not hard to learn I still think it's an extremely bad user experience. The standard apps are just so incredibly bad (e.g. the mail app, the photo app, the video app, even the store itself) that I'm not using them at all. I spend 99.9% of my time on the old Windows desktop.
The market share of the Surface again is extremely small and I don't see any indications of it growing.
I totally agree that competition is good for the customer (and might potentially be bad for competitors), but so far that doesn't help Microsoft.
I also have 2 daughters who are big fans of the Disney princesses, but I would very much like it if they at least had the option to chose a princess that doesn't follow the standard formula of the previous 10 Disney princesses.
That's the same pseudo-argument that keeps coming up again and again. Whose lives did he play with? Please don't answer with some hypothetical "aiding the enemy" crap.
Wasn't it the U.S. military that originally played with lives aka "collateral damage"?