Good one bedroom/studio apartments?

Spacehusky · 2012-05-25T02:05:09.135146+00:00

I lived in Woodriver off depot (right behind sorority row). In your price range, can walk/bike to downtown, campus, or midtown. The apartments are a little old and not as pretty, but who cares for the price and location. It was also the largest 1 bedroom out of my friends.

vladwow91 · 4 days

I have a wizard with pretty decent vitality buffs and those damn things drain all my health in 3 seconds. Its like I can hold off a horde of 30 minions but a fucking weird tentacle thing takes me down before I can blink.

NewOrleansBrass · 4 days

Wizard is best solo with Templar sidekick, otherwise you get overwhelmed VERY easily...

Ijustderped · 4 days

Yeah. I have had Netflix for the better part of 5 years now and it is a bit annoying that they recycle a good amount of their big name movies. It seems they let the contract run out, keep it off streaming for a few months, and then bring it back as an upcoming title.

I mean I realize they are legitimately adding new movies (and some of them being big name movies) but it seems like there is a bit of padding to their numbers.

Nylecoj · 4 days

16/M/USA WANT TO CHAT? I'M INTO LINKIN PARK, KORN, AND SKATEBOARDING. NO PREPPIES OR POSERS!!

NewOrleansBrass · 5 days

Mine is similiar but I use Arcane Orb instead of Arcane Torrent since it does such widespread damage. When tons of minions cluster around you it totally wrecks all of them in two hits.

Also I used wave of force but eventually gave it up for ray of frost since it can aptly target enemies far away. REALLY helpful for shamans who keep raising minions from afar and powerhouse enemies that you can kite.

mrfearlock · 5 days

What have you posted to make that kind of money?

MoveToDenmark · 5 days

I think the rise of mass communication is another factor that brings this issue to the forefront. I like to look at some of the people on my facebook who just go out, party, do drugs, get knocked up, and brag on facebook about being the shit and yelling really ignorant positions as if they are right.

Then I think how the majority of the public is going to be average by the very definition of what average means. It is just now in this day and age we are giving the "average" public the means to broadcast their opinion, which puts banal opinions to the forefront with the smart ones. I like to picture what the majority of people in the 1600s were like. Uneducated, married by 17, espousing whatever loud thing they could to seem smart. Now give them facebook and you would probably get a similiar level of "noise" in the public opinion. So it isn't necessarily MORE stupid people, just more means for the stupid people to broadcast.

pk7677 · 6 days

Thanks! I messaged the mods with this link and the suggestion.

pk7677 · 7 days

Mods should put this link in sidebar so we don't have so many threads "is the server down?"

snwidget · 7 days

I am a simple drinker so my go to summer cocktail is a gin and tonic. Use Tanquray as it has the best bite to it. Add tonic water and squeeze a bit of fresh lime juice. Perfect drink for poolside.

donkey_hater · 8 days

Yeah. Normally with a large IPO like this the company sells all the shares outright to the investment banker, in this case Morgan Stanley. So Morgan Stanley fronts Facebook the full amount of the IPO and then owns all the stock in the offering. Morgan Stanley then turns around and distributes them to the other underwriters in the syndicate.

So the underwriters all sign on for a percentage chunk of the shares and they buy at the price Morgan Stanley allows. Each underwriter then sells to their investors.

Now, if you are a company like Morgan Stanley and you have, for example, 1 million shares of Facebook stock that you own and you know it is guaranteed to make money from the IPO price to the market then who do you sell it to? Most likely your first call is to your biggest customers who have given you hundreds of thousand in business over the years buying normal stocks and investment packages. So you tell them "since you are such a good customer, and you have spent so much at Morgan Stanley, we are willing to offer you 500 shares of Facebook stock at the IPO price." The hot IPOs are like a customer rewards for the largest investors.

Since the investment banker owns the shares this is legitimate. The company can choose who it sells stock to and so can the investment banker. Once the individual shareholders own the shares they can choose who to sell to (on the open market). Free market at it's finest.

imnotabus · 8 days

Wizard level 15: A great strategy is to go to the front lines of enemies and use the Frost Nova spell when everyone is clustered around you and then use Wizard Orb, which will AoE all the frozen enemies. I have gotten 8 kills with one hit this way.

Any other decent spells? I try to play around but most of them seem annoying...

grantmoore3d · 8 days

If you are trying to raise 100k you can raise an extra 2k to hire a transactional attorney to set up the kickstarter account and transfer if it is possible.

OutsideTradingIn · 9 days

Just keep in mind that it is a CEO's job to sell his company. Look at the merits underneath the company and make a rational decision.

Your uncle can't give you any inside knowledge so all he is really giving you is the same stuff you can find online but with enthusiasm.

If I had bought when every CEO told me the stock would be tripled by the end of the year I would NOT be a millionaire because none of the stocks tripled haha.

OutsideTradingIn · 9 days

On a totally inherent level it would do nothing because it is a loan based off the future value of money.

Ex. If you have a choice you want your money now, not later. This is because if you have the money now you can do all sorts of things with it to make more money. Therefore, present money has a corresponding future value based upon interest rates. It is similiar to that saying a bird in the hand is worth three in the bush. Well a dollar now is worth perhaps 5 dollars in a year. Supposedly this would be the rate where somebody would give up the dollar now for a future promise of 5 dollars.

Anyways, the yield of a bond is based on the future value of money. The company would rather have the money now because they believe whatever business purpose they put it to is more valuable than the 8% they will owe on it. The investor feels that although they want their money now, at the future value of 8% to their investment the money is worth it to defer payment.

So back to your original question. It is tricky because bonds are raised for all sorts of reasons. A company could use bonds if they are running out of cash or if they are planning to expand (so both positive or negative to a stock price depending on the situation). However, from a purely economic standpoint, a bond would hopefully be neutral as the present value of the money equals the future payment. If anything, the company hopes to make a profit because anything they can do with the present money that returns above 8% is profit to the corporation.

I know that doesn't EXACTLY answer what you are asking but I think that is still along the lines of the answer you are looking for.

ac91 · 9 days

I remember watching my dad do the Tarzan swing when i was like 6 and even then I was like "that doesn't look like a good idea..."

funkyskunk · 9 days

I am 5ft 11, with a large toso, athletic build and shorter legs. This gives basic proportion but not with the pants. In retrospect the full cut works for me because all my jeans are boot cut since I can't pull off skinny leg anything.

I took the pants to the tailor's (along with another pair I needed hemmed) and he declined to work on these pants saying that they were fine (a bit of a language barrier). I asked if they should be tapered and he kind of shrugged and kept saying "it full cut, it good fit." So I figured if he wasn't willing to take it on for money it was probably decent.

Thanks for all the help though. I am starting a professional job and need to start paying attention to this sort of stuff and this thread had actually given me a lot of great guidance.

funkyskunk · 9 days

So if I get them tapered it would look better? I side with shorter slacks because I hate the feel/look when they settle on the shoe.

AlertAtheist · 10 days

From a policy perspective let us illustrate an example. We first have to assume that the customer and the company have the same legal rights. Both have entered into a contingent contract (one for service, one for future goods). So when the company goes bankrupt from the get go we have to assume they have both entered into the same transactions (you can argue all you want against this, but to argue against it would also disrupt centuries of common law and statutory contract law before we even get to the bankruptcy stuff).

So now from a policy view we have a company that contracted for services to be paid at the end of the month and an individual for a right to a future good (which is basically similar to a stock option. You pay 5 dollars to secure first rights to the game valued at 50 dollars. You are paying for that right. That is what the 5 dollar pays for). If you pay for the full game then it is more like a future goods contract. You are paying now to ensure you will get the good later.

Now, what are the differences between the company and the customer?

The company has a contract that articulates their rights and privileges to the debt. The customer must rely on common law principles.
The company is owed a lot more money and therefore is more at risk. The customer has 5-50 dollars at stake.
The company employs many people, who if the company goes bankrupt themselves, would be a huge strain on unemployment and other local resources. The customer does not have this risk.
The company in my original example already gave 100% of the goods to the company over the month before it billed (valued at thousands of dollars).
If we choose the customer than one company will take a huge hit that may seriously harm them. If we choose the customers than 5,000 customers are going to take a hit that will inconvenience them.

If given that criteria you cannot say what is the equitable solution, then you are just arguing for an argument's sake. I understand consumers have rights and at least in the US there is massive legislation to protect these rights. But when a society must choose between the two above, the company is going to win.

AlertAtheist · 10 days

My point is in order to change the law you have to know what the law is and why it is in place, otherwise you are just spouting unrealistic nonsense. I am not trying to win anything. My entire platform can be summed up as if you really do feel strongly about these issues then you have to be able to discuss them on the same level as other people who put these laws in place. One of the basic rules of war is know your enemy. If you want to put forth a contrary position to a current law and be taken seriously, then it is expected of you before coming to the argument to do due diligence and learn what the law is. Or in this case at least learn what a word means before you use it as a solution.

Do you give an opinion on fuel efficiency without knowing how an engine works? No. Do you talk about the possible uses of medicines without knowing chemistry? No. People can think law is different because it uses language, but at the end of the day it involves very precise terms and concepts that interact in a very complicated way.

I am sorry if I am hurting people's feelings or infringing on what people feel is their unique opinion, but I don't think it is too much to ask that somebody knows what an escrow account is if they are going to refute an entire doctrine by proposing to use escrow accounts.

Wanting facts to be different is one thing. Understanding a fact is entirely different.

Edit: Also, about the merit of your argument. The fact that kids who spent 5 dollars on a video game do not realize that is a contingent contract under the strictes terms of the law and thus put them in terms as a creditor under bankruptcy law shows that they are in no position to dictate what the law should be. There is absolutely no distinction between a company that is owed money for a service that they performed and a kid who paid 5 dollars for a video game. The entire argument reeks of entitlement and first world problems. If anyone wants to offer one single meritous argument that distinguishes it, then I am ready to listen. Until then i will continue to tell them why they are horribly mistaken in their presumption that it is a different matter at all.

AlertAtheist · 10 days

Langauge makes argument. You must master one to master the other. I would rebut your argument with what the current law allows for, but you already professed you aren't interested in what the law is you are more interested in throwing around opinions about what should be. I have no interest in talking about idealistic standards, as I am a bit of a realist. I suggest you go to /r/politics or wherever those discussions take place.

To your second point, in order to change the law you need to first understand the law. As it has been shown, you do not have any interest in understanding the current law so that is a pointless argument as well.

I do know why the law is the way it is (I work in corporate law so I handle some of this everyday). If you really cared I could give you the cases that make up the IRS and SEC and bankruptcy stuff, and the appropriate code sections from each agency, but it seems you are not interested in learning. You are more interested in typing your opinion on the internet. Hence why I keep referring to you as ignorant. You have many opinions but no basis of knowledge for these opinions.

If you really are interested in these topics I do suggest you learn more about the actual doctrines and black letter law behind it so you will be better suited in expressing your opinions and perhaps do well in moving them forward.

Unfortunately, it is hard to talk about the merits of something when someone does not know either A) the language B) the doctrine or C) the policy. You are basically saying you are against this business practice without knowing the economic, legal, or business implications. You have stripped away all the skill from the discussion and seem to just want to argue generalizations and politics, neither which I particularly care about.

If you need help in some things to read to get started let me know.

One-Year Club	ComboCommenter 2011-11-28
Verified Email

funkyskunk

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login