patrick.net

I miss Jack. :-(

Any of you regulars heard from him? I know he teaches, but I thought he might start stopping by again now that summer is here. And I'm curious to hear his opinions about Marin, now that Dataquick is showing a YOY decline. Wasn't his prediction that Marin County would decline only 10% due to fundamentals?

A lot of people think this is some kind of Scrooge-like turn for Buffett, but there's nothing new to see here.

Obviously, Buffet was waiting for Bill Gates to announce his going full-time on the foundation.

Buffett has long had a way for shareholders (of A shares, at least) to designate a charity.

Buffett was the one who got Bill interested in philanthropy in the first place. But Buffett has always been careful about giving away money, because it's hard for lots of money to be given (witness the corruption of the money donated for the last few catastrophies).

Also, Buffett has always planned to give away his money, so this isn't news, really. He's just getting old now. And he's never wanted his kids to inherit his money (not good for them).

Obviously, Buffett is impressed with the B&M G foundation, and thinks Bill and Melinda and Bill's dad will do a good job.

>>oh please, i have a really hard time believing anything good is ever going to come from that ruthless nerd Gates.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants/

New thread: Doh!

Mexico is for mexicans. America is for americans.

except you took california and texas from mexico 1846-48 in a war of territorial expansion. there IS an irony that they are slowly taking it back by other means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War

gatesy has quit his job to manage the foundation, which is a Good Thing -- I don't see many other billionaires setting up and running foundations of that magnitude with those humanitarian goals.

but i agree with you on 9/11, which has some rather scary implications for the psyche of the american ruling elite and just what sort of mess you're in over there.

hee hee, you're funny, bap. glad you could bring more of your famous rationality back into the debate which was otherwise derailing and going downhill...

Is it not odd that the same lefty-libs that demand safer cars, gun control, speed limits, child-proof everything, super clean waste water, super duper clean drinking water, no hate speech, child proof everything, no spanking of kids …

so by implication, normal american families want dangerous cars, guns everywhere, no speed limits, dangerous toys, dirty contaminated drinking water containing giardia and typhus, loads of hate speech, more dangers for children, and the ability to abuse kids and traumatise them... o-ka-a-ay... just so long as we're clear on those biblical principles of enhancing well-being...

HIV/AIDS happens to be everyone's problem, if you look at the very high heterosexual infection rates in other parts of the world. faithful and monogamous same-sex couples committing to a civil union are extremely unlikely to be a part of the epidemiological problem.

Bap33,

I'm sorry, but your earlier comment was over the line. I am a pretty tolerant moderator, but I won't allow such broad vitriol in my threads. Please keep your political comments on point and directed. Any "all X people are evil" kind of stuff is better left on more reactionary forums. Please consider that we welcome all readers here, not just the ones you would choose in your own utopia.

Any of you regulars heard from him? (Jack)

I talked to him in May before I went on vacation, haven't heard from him since. It would be cool to hold a N.Bay meet again, maybe we can lure him for a few beers?

Wasn’t his prediction that Marin County would decline only 10% due to fundamentals?

Sounds familiar, and not to burst his projection, but I was seeing 10% reductions last fall. And just today, I went to an open house where the realtor offered me 10% off without asking; I'm sure I could get 15% if I were serious.

started what? :|

given that all your policy ideas contradict each other, it's hard not to say anything that won't set off some strange reaction...

Is only his lefty lib, anti-American, anti-establishment view welcome?

yes. you're being too antidisestablishmentarian.

Bap33,

I welcome any views and I think you probably know by now that I'm not ideological. The specific comments about homosexuals were over the line. I ask people to keep in mind that we have all types of readers. Arguments about the relative position of homosexuality in society are fine. Calling them names based upon a personal viewpoint is not.

I would have similarly censored anyone calling all southerners stupid, or all republicans heartless.

The only broad generalizations I let slide are all FBs using NAAVLPs are imbeciles.

well, that's a tidy little 555 posts...

i came in at about post 400 with time zone lag, and repeated half the arguments already made... oh well...

but i still maintain that 2+2=4 is not 'true', it's 1) a symbolic representation and 2) a claim or belief that is actually not even real, but is a semiotic representation of physicalness enforced by an overweening semantic patriarchalism... neodeconstructivist conceptualism ... social convention... experential intersubjectivity... etc... burble...

Rancher:
30 = gross profit for rancher
-5 = discount paid by rancher
25 = net profit to rancher

Men:
-30 = gross cost
3 = rebate
-27 = net cost

Boy:
2 = gained from stealing portion of rebate

The Boy's $2 is the difference between the Rancher's profit and the Men's cost.

Bap33, thanks for demonstrating the power and import of accounting principles.

Bap33

LOL! I guess I did assume the Rancher leveraged at 0% in order to have a $0 cost of goods sold.

Damned exotic cow financing products.