In my recent interview with Matt O’Brien for his book, There’s No Retirement? , he says “Not everyone responds… and when they do, they look different than you.” If you’re like me and don’t like the people that spend money in retirement, I’m going to tell you that you’re not alone. But as always I’m a pessimist. And I don’t expect everyone to retire at the same rate. And how to do that isn’t exactly easy, if you’re trying to maximize one’s earning power. I’m going to give some simple guidelines for your plan to maximize your retirement. All that hard work and research should be paying dividends!

Make your money last For the past two years, I’ve been discussing this. And even if you aren’t planning to retire at that age, you should want to make your money last as long as you can. Why? Because that’s how you maximize your income down the road in retirement. And if you can’t maintain thatincomethen you could be one of those unfortunate individuals that is living off the earnings that are invested in retirement accounts. Don’t let this happen to you! Your money should last forever.

Have a purpose and do things I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had or been in with people who have the same question… “What do I do after retirement?” The obvious answer is to make a couple of really good movies… but you could be missing out on the biggest thing to get you started in the right direction “What do you want to be doing when you’re done?”

If you’re just starting, then you’re missing out, too. Do you want to be a full time artist? Do you want to study for your BA or go to college? Do you want to be rich? Or do you want to try to figure out what you want to spend your money on? Now that’s one big choice to make and I wish we’d all make that one. It’ll make your life much more fulfilling and enjoyable and if you’re lucky, this could be the end of an adventure that started long ago. So what kind of things can you do after you’ve retired? What’s the best way to enjoy what life has to throw at you? I’ve always considered having a passion or hobby to be the best kind to enjoy your retirement, both at the same time. A passion is an innate desire that’s hard to quantify. An activity is an activity, just like you will enjoy cooking dinner. But neither one is an activity that will last forever. It’s the type of thing you can enjoy without ever worrying about the money or having to do anything that’s demanding. And if you’re starting the right way, how can you learn to enjoy both pursuits from when you’re an unemployed 18 year old or an unemployed 60 year old? This is the very first thing that I’m going to tell you.

In my career as a life coach, I see many of my clients at an early age that were both unemployed and pursuing a new hobby before they were ready. Many of these people never had a real passion to enjoy. And that’s why I say, “If you’re not enjoying whatever it is that you are pursuing so you can enjoy your life in retirement, you’re wasting the best opportunity you may have to enjoy your retirement as well,” because you’re not doing that to avoid going broke, you’re doing it to enjoy what’s actually getting you anywhere. If you enjoy your career, and you enjoy your hobbies when you can, you’ll most certainly enjoy your retirement.

I’m going to tell you the answer to this question. Whether I’m talking about your first hobby, your college study course or your job offer, it boils down to this… “You are how you live your career.” Your retirement is too important to you to be living on less. Now, this isn’t a magic plan that will do anything but just give you the confidence and freedom to enjoy your retirement the way it’s meant to be enjoyed.

Start a business in retirement The best way you know how to enjoy life as a retired adult is working for yourself. A lot of people have the idea that they are trying to live their lives as the wealthy, spoiled rich children, but once the reality is set into their heads, they begin to realise that if they were successful financially, then they would have more money so it wasn’t a big deal. Which is probably a good thing because if you’re not happy doing your own thing, don’t bother giving a crap about anyone else. As a matter of fact, it’s a good thing that you are working for yourself. And if you work for yourself, especially

So, in their haste to repair the ship they began operating outside of it’s hull, with a partially repaired deck and hull that doesn’t hold the same amount of water, when in fact, it was about 200 feet of water, so it’s pretty much still underwater, in some places.

As the ship rolled toward the water it became more and more apparent that an aircraft or a submarine would sink it. Instead, what they did was take a large jackhammer and begin hammering in chunks of wood until the stern became stable again. The crew didn’t realize however, that the large jackhammer they were using would not break up the deck, or that it would be easy to hammer out the deck, or the water will drain to the deck, once in the water the deck will have a very high water pressure, and once the water pressure is removed the deck will stay there, like a little island, at the bottom of a small body of water, where it is easy to access.

They were not concerned with where the boat sank because they didn’t know what was underneath, they just knew that it wasn’t safe to venture into the small body of water. For many of these first few days it was too dangerous to venture, they made an emergency landing off the shore of Baltimore. For over an hour a small group of survivors, who were able to escape the debris after the boat was towed out and moved, followed it’s path, and eventually made it back to a camp with a truck on wheels, ready to take them back to a place safer than the water, to which they had been promised that no one would try to kill them. The ship was now on its way back to Baltimore, to pick up where it had left off. It traveled around Baltimore for 45 + hours, without incident, until it arrived back and landed with no problems at all, in Norfolk, for the repairs. This crew, as they described it to their families, had “a great journey, but a perfect farewell to this world (and) is now in my soul, I thank God Almighty, my Lord and Savior”. There have been many stories told about what happened to the crew of the ship, and how they survived in this remote location, as well as the people who actually survived on board, but many are not telling the full story. So, I am sharing the story of the survivors and the people who lived and worked on that boat that can now be used as a lesson in survival.

The Boat and the People on it (from YouTube)

The crew returned back to Baltimore with very little money, but without much food or anything to call their own. They were eventually able to rent a home to live at, at a very good price. However, the home for them was not at all safe, it now had broken windows and sagging roof, and no power. In fact, what happened next was that the whole house was washed away, the wood is what is left. I remember being in college in my late teens when a friend with no money rented an old house in a neighborhood of Baltimore and that was where I lived and became quite aware of how dirty and decrepit a place that house had become. When the ship hit, it hit the water on its keel, which caused the stern to start moving a little faster than usual, it was moving a little faster than a locomotive as well. The ship then began to sink until it was in a deep hole, there were huge chunks of wood and debris everywhere. This was when the people were rescued. A group of people living on the island called the “Aquarium” which is close to the boat and close to the shore, decided to move the boat with a boat crew. They started to remove the wreck, then the boat was being towed after it was done when things started happening more rapidly. The people on the boat were moving around, one man began to try to haul things into it, the hull that was moving around was getting dangerously slippery, the boat started to slide even further, and all of a sudden the “Aquarium” was flooded, then some of the people on the boat were trapped in the side, they all got washed out to sea .

The “Aquarium” was eventually saved, mostly by a small group of people, whom were able to crawl into that side of the boat. It was then the crew began to try to pick the people up. It was very hard to stay afloat for anything and everyone was quite aware that there would be no hope for them if they were ever picked up. Eventually the crew began to put people into the vessel in a row, and then the boat just went down. They made it back to sea, and were rescued, with no money and no food, but a good helping.

The Crew rescued the

What this means in practical terms is that this month, their flights will now be French-speaking.

In Maythis year, a couple who did not know each other took an Air Canada flight for Canada Day that they expected to take from Montreal to Vancouver and Vancouver to Toronto but ended up in Vancouver instead at 6 pm, a full seven hours later, due to a hold during the flight. They claim that they were treated unfairly by the airline and for nothing.

This time, on the day the Air Canada flight landed in Montreal, it was not given off, which would have been possible if one of the passengers had said something along the lines of, “Your airline doesn’t listen to us. It’s a terrible mistake, but I’ve had it.” But the plane continued on as scheduled and landed in Toronto at 4 pm that evening, still at 6 pm after they had been held for more than seven hours. This time it was also not given off, but after they were given an extra hour that they had not agreed to, they were supposed to board a separate plane at 9 pm with nothing but a few bags and their Canadian credit cards. Despite the fact that they had been at no loss while the time was held, they were then asked to wait while a person they had not spoken to and did not know boarded the unescorted airplane. They were then given a $60 tip and a free flight. The airline, to which this lawsuit was finally filed, has denied the allegations that were made by the couple. In an attempt to settle the dispute, Air Canada gave away an extra $450 of luggage that a companion had been looking forward to bringing on the flight. The case was settled for $5,000 (this amount actually includes a hotel stay), with Air Canada paying $100 in legal fees. The couple now has to get the extra $450 travel voucher just to fly again at the time when this incident happened.

Again, not saying this is not a bad thing and should be welcomed in many areas, but it should always not be done to such a small extent that the airlines can’t respond to concerns or accommodate complaints. Now, about that price increase on October 2, 2009: it is a $150 increase under the terms of a CADA agreement. This was added to the previous $200 cost of a one-way ticket, the increase resulting from an increase in the cost of Canadian Air Service. The additional cost was for “increased capacity and increased number of seats,” that is, another revenue boost. That the CADA agreement is what caused these increases is not news to anyone who has ever dealt with them. One particular scenario that is discussed very often revolves around what has long been considered an inflated revenue figure in relation to revenue growth.

If one were to look at the chart of Air Canada’s finances, one is able to see that Air Canada does indeed look like a profit maker these days. In addition to the increases, Air Canada’s revenue growth, which comes from the increased revenue from what was previously CAC and from the sale of the airline’s assets, is far outpacing Air Canada’s expenses overall. It is only this change in business strategy that puts one on good financial footing. It is just that it is very difficult to calculate anything beyond a certain amount of revenue growth, one which includes a large amount of CAC. In the past, this figure has always been much lower than that of expenses. This is because on average, one can imagine the revenue from CAC coming in close to the costs. But as Air Canada’s revenues grow, Air Canada’s expenses (both real and financial) naturally rise. So while the number of passengers flying Air Canada’s aircraft will remain roughly the same, the number of seats it must accommodate will definitely rise (to more than its previous business model did allow it), and in doing so, costs are going to be higher as well. It will be interesting to see how much that increase looks to the financial picture, but it sure isn’t increasing all at once. As with all things to do with Air Canada, the company is not going to be able to simply ignore it and continue on its path without much change. That is one of the bigger lessons that the company will have to learn from these recent allegations, to the degree that it can, before it repeats these same mistakes in the future. But that still leaves one to wonder if there is anything that this case, and a new year, could do to force that company to change their ways. In the absence of any other action, what would it take to change the status quo? It seems unlikely. Air Canada has been operating in a bad situation for quite some time, and for some time is unlikely to improve. But perhaps the only way to reverse this trajectory is if the company is forced to act quickly. Then, maybe the government will actually give the necessary funding to keep things from going the way they have for years. Until then, Air Canada may well continue on its current track despite facing some increased expenses

That could be changing, though. It seems that the Federal Aviation Administration is seeking ways to bring down flight prices. In October a proposed rule change was submitted that involves allowing airlines greater flexibility in the pricing of tickets. Airlines could use their own internal pricing systems and pass that cost on to their passengers, thus lowering your airline’s own costs. To keep costs on a downward trend with passengers, the proposed rule is geared toward pricing tickets on a “best efforts” basis, where airlines are permitted to offer the lowest possible cost for two reasons. The first reason is to help preserve the value of the airline’s low fare, allowing airlines to sell off valuable inventory. The second reason is to keep costs in check by reducing overhead, and making airlines more cost-competitive.

The proposed rule change also allows airlines to drop prices after a certain number of people cancel their fares, in order to discourage long-distance airfares. One interesting provision of the proposed rule would allow airlines to advertise fares between two specific airports to make up for a reduced ticket price, rather than dropping prices at more distant airports. How many Americans have been forced to change their flights to a distant hub due to a price war between planes?

Airlines that are allowed price wars may also be able to use these price reductions to encourage passengers to fly with their particular airline, eliminating the need for passengers to change flights and potentially saving valuable dollars. Here’s the thing is, airline pricing is supposed to be based on what it costs to get service to every stop. Under the current rules, a flight to Detroit costs $190, and a flight from New York to Denver can cost more than $300. What if we gave airlines the ability to offer low prices through promotions? Airlines that were profitable enough could make up the difference. It’s a win-win.

Under the proposed rules, airlines would be able to offer some form of “opt in” deal, in which passengers could select a pre-selected destination from a limited list of airlines that they want to fly with, then pay for a minimum number of journeys with that airline. This would be an interesting way to encourage more people to join a particular airline, since people are attracted to airlines for different reasons than prices, such as convenience. Under the proposed rules, airlines would also be able to offer ticket pricing directly to customers, which would allow consumers to see an airline’s service before the ticket is ever purchased.

The way airlines already handle ticket pricing is they price tickets in increments. For example, a ticket in Denver costs $120, and a ticket to New York costs $190. Under the proposed rules, a cheaper ticket would cost $70 more, and a more expensive one $100 more, to ensure a competitive price. This means that once the customer receives the ticket price, there’s really no way to change it. So, at the end of the day, the passenger pays for the benefit of a lower, lower price. Under the proposed rules, customers would be able to actually choose their own seat on a flight, not pay for it.

And a look at the new 2016 Chevrolet Silverado LE. “Trump’s latest executive order is a reminder that the Trump administration’s executive orders are much less consequential than we think.” – Greg Sargent “The new rules could create political headaches for automakers on both sides of the debate.” – James Vlahos “The Trump administration says GM will keep plants in Indiana, but even Republicans here in Indianapolis worry that the president’s edict could harm the state’s economy, a place where a lot of jobs are.” – Michael Hiltzik “GM’s plan to move its Michigan and Ohio plants from the US to India.” – James Vlahos “The auto industry’s recent losses don’t sit well with some of the business-minded and tax-savvy Trump advisers who will be advising President Donald Trump on tax policy.” – Adam Liptak


The Ford Motor Company is the most profitable American car company. It is the second-largest global automaker. If we are going to compete for jobs and innovation, we need to have the best economy and highest standard of living in the world. That means we need the best workforce, the best technology, the best facilities, and the best market for our products. Unfortunately, some recent negative headlines about Ford in our media haven’t focused enough on all these things. To put it in perspective, the current administration is actually creating more good jobs than that. And while our UAW contract is up for renegotiation later this year, we have been through a very productive renegotiation process. The company has done well. It has continued to reinvest in operations, expanding facilities in Arizona and Michigan, building on its current lineup of cars and trucks. And it is investing in new ideas and technologies to make our vehicles safer, more efficient and more fuel-efficient. Those investments aren’t just making us profitable, they’re also creating good paying jobs. We must get a little smarter at how we manage our companies, in what I call a Smart Team approach. Our challenge is to create jobs that are not only good paying, they’re also well-supported by existing and future income streams. We’ve worked on the jobs part with one side of the company and the other side with the US Chamber of Commerce, all across the country. Last week, we started an apprenticeship program for new hires and veterans. In the coming weeks, we will host a roundtable discussion about where we can further strengthen our programs to make sure they are working well for all employees. I’m not going to speak much about the president’s executive order, but the fact is that as a company, we were disappointed by recent news about decisions made by the current administration as well as Trump’s recent tweets. It would be good to remind the company’s workforce of the good it has accomplished to date. I think it’s time to have them take a look at what’s being done right now. In just a few years, Ford has become one of the world’s largest car makers – a distinction that no longer exists when it comes to vehicles. This year, we will build some 2,000 vehicles outside the United States for the North American market, which in fact, is in great shape, thanks in large part to the commitment of our company and our employees. And, most importantly, and this is something everyone already knows, we’ve achieved a record number of new automotive patents in the first 10 months of the Trump administration. During the same period last year, we gained more than 1,000. At Ford, success is measured not just in how many vehicles we produce, but more importantly by the ways we create value for our customers. One such benefit is the Ford EcoBoost Hybrid. With an average of 41 miles per gallon and the best-in-class fuel economy, the Ford EcoBoost Hybrid has the potential to change how people travel by changing our lives. We’re also excited about the Model X. It has an electric motor, the only one of its kind in the United States. More importantly, it has become an example of a smart car, where we use technology to make driving just as safe and convenient as ever. We have done much to reduce energy consumption, which is now the lowest in the industry. We are building and manufacturing every one of our vehicle in America. And, we expect that to continue and we have lots of plans to do that. On top of our strong fundamentals and innovation and job creation in America, we’re also developing and manufacturing exciting new products for customers around the world. Our new vehicle for the new century will be based on a philosophy, the same one Ford created at our Dearborn Assembly plant and the one we continue to build and build in California and Michigan. That philosophy is “drive innovation”. To build on that success we’re already on the cusp of exciting new global product development. And because of our leadership in this area, with or

Gross margins remained competitive and growth in sales was expected.

The company did not report any earnings for December 2013 and only provided a one-sentence release to investors who were already planning their dividend. Investors should be in no doubt about GungHo’s direction GungHo’s business strategy is to move from creating high-quality games to creating high-quality software that appeals to a wider audience with higher revenue. While not surprising given that the company has been so diligent in improving the quality of its games’ visuals within the last three years, this is not a trend I would expect to continue much longer. . . .

Even though GungHo is looking to focus more on new game titles, it remains to be seen how long that will last in terms of revenue. Its recent games, such as The King of Fighters XIV, are not only among the bestselling games of 2013, but also the second bestselling of the year. While they are not breaking records like they did between 2010 2015, they do have a decent shot at that and are a testament to the continuing ability of the company to bring original titles here on the global stage that appeal to new gamers while introducing new and unique gameplay mechanics that are unique to the genre. In terms of the long-term impact of the strong sales of these products, I think that it’s going to be a while before they are as big a factor as more famous titles of the same genre. It is also likely that the company will have to adjust their strategy to look beyond the core business.

But from their point of view, it’s all a matter of time until we see the long-term impact of this industry shift not the latest title, but the titles for the foreseeable future. At GungHo, we are still very proud of the quality of our games, the diversity of our players, and the fact that we have reached more than 400 million gamers around the world. With the development of a new title every time we release a new title, we will keep releasing high-quality titles. But as long as our games remain relevant, we will continue to improve them. But I don’t think that long-term success is a given. GungHo is very fortunate to be a company that makes games and does very well from its production of games; it’s a very diverse company, and I don’t think we will have to get a bit bigger once the new titles start to turn the company from an entry point into a worldwide juggernaut.

Looking at the other two companies, Game Freak and Namco Bandai, we don’t have much insight on these companies’ business situations. We certainly weren’t expecting any significant revenue increases in 2013, but with Namco Bandai making similar improvements the company is gaining more momentum as both its games are already being promoted very heavily - which does not bode well for Game Freak:

Namco Bandai’s future, like that for GungHo, is hard to understand. While the company hasn’t announced whether it plans on having another game developed on its own after The King of Fighters XIV, the fact that GungHo announced plans to develop new games on its own is very telling. The games will obviously be for both current generation consoles (PS4, Xbox One, etc.), but the fact that the company will be developing new games for new platforms (Xbox 360, PS3, etc.) shows a level of confidence in its ability to make high quality games and has opened up its market to potential competition. Since the release of The King of Fighters 14 in Japan, Namco Bandai has increased its market share from only 32% to 61%. Its software has also been featured in video games magazine publications and their combined sales are higher than Game Freak’s combined titles.

But what are the chances the titles will come to Japan? With Namco Bandai operating out of a smaller, less developed country in Japan, Namco Bandai owns the licenses to all of its games, which makes them a very significant player in the industry.

The games that will be revealed when Tournaments Next is released, however, will be different from previous Namco Bandai titles. While some are developed by Hideo Kojima and others are written by Hideki Kamiya, both of these companies will be developing their games on new platforms: the Wii U and the NX. With the Wii U being Nintendo’s most recent console platform, this will be a massive challenge for both Namco Bandai and GungHo but this also means that in a way, the companies are already ahead of GungHo as both companies can expect to launch their games on this very platform very soon. This does not bode well for Game Freak, who would have to adjust its plans to work within those constraints:

In another interview with Famitsu, GungHo producer Tomonobu Itagaki made it clear that while Kojima is the primary dev for KOF XIV, the game will not be

I also think this is the easiest option to understand. “The only thing I need is a hammer”, seems to be the only thing out of the question. I would not know how that makes it “easier” or is not “havng to get” as a person, because I simply do not know the first thing about hammers. I’m certain it is not easy to get, and I certainly have read online that it is difficult to get some, but I can not say for sure. Let’s do a case study to see what our situation is in. It’s a case study as in “Let’s play around with this” and not “Let’s have a look”.

If we look more carefully at the situation we should see it this:

Here is the problem: You are standing next to your best friend and you can see that he has a large box of stuff in front of his feet. He is not holding anything, but he is sitting down on the floor in front of the table, making that hard to see stuff behind him. You are aware of this, but not the guy behind you. You are a bit distracted because you are trying to watch your best friend, instead of putting down your tray and working out the problem.

Let us assume that his box of stuff is in front of the chair with the hard to see stuff behind him. Let us assume that the best friend of the above guy is not seeing his stuff.

With the little bit I know of electronics and hard drive storage here is the situation we will find ourselves in. Let’s go with a case of “A man gets home and his wife (who is standing to his left) comes across her computer on the table. This could be the guy with the large box of stuff. His wife was able to tell she is the one to bring in the case and that was that, until the computer starts to boot and she looks at his stuff and realizes he is not there and has been hiding it behind furniture for a long time. This can be seen in the hand holding it. If the woman thinks this is too far, she can tell him she only wants to know his stuff, and the best friend and wife know this, but she just wants to know. The bestie may not know the wife is hiding it behind the table, but he definitely knows she doesn’t think it’s fair. This can be seen in the way she puts her phone down. What would you do? Should you get it? Should you ask? How about putting it down?

If you could show me the best way to make this situation easier I would be very happy to learn. I don’t want to be the “You guys need a hammer, you need a hammer” person, but maybe I am. But the only thing I would do is start taking your hands of the computer, and saying to “Sit down, sit down and take off your boots” so that they are sitting on the table and all that. Maybe the best friend won’t notice you doing this yet because he is still watching the computer and probably is not saying anything. Then I would simply try not to let what the best friend is doing distract, and to not put anything on the table and turn it the other way away from your couch, and that would be that. Your best friend would still see you doing it, and would get the idea so would the other guy. The best friend might not realize the wife is actually hiding it behind the table, but we’ll use that as well. It’s funny: your best friend says “I think I need a hammer”, and you say “Your husband has a box in what you can see of the computer sitting on the table”. You think, “Well, I suppose it would be a good idea to get that box of stuff to him”, and the best friend says “It would be too hard to ask and I suspect we would both want him to find it, right? If you need to get it, then that’s fine, but if he wants you to get it he has to be willing to find out that you are hiding something.” Maybe you think we’re going to lose the best friend, but no! He’s just a little confused and there are a lot more important issues involved. The point here is to do a little experiment that everyone talks about in that awesome video on the internet or that tutorial in the video of me getting the hang of a computer.

Start by getting the laptop and putting the hard drive in the same spot where the computer was when the hard drive was inserted. Again, this can be done in the living room or bedroom of the

The Journal reported on Oct. 5 that Huawei had a “close relationship with the NSA” and that it had created the “Backdoor.Trap” software that was widely used by the US government to spy on its customers. The U. S. government apparently didn’t care… at least until it was noticed and investigated. Google and the Justice Department had to be summoned to court in September in Washington to help the government stop the “backdoor” program. It was later revealed that the National Security Agency paid Google to provide the back door. The New York Times reports that the government paid $5.4 billion in wiretaps and other electronic surveillance requests in 2012 for the company’s services worldwide. It is estimated that one in five emails sent in the United States was monitored by the government this year, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The FBI would prefer that its customers didn’t know what information the American government is collecting. It is also considering opening another office in Beijing.

The government wants the Chinese government to see them in the mirror.

Google and the Justice Department aren’t the only ones paying attention to China’s efforts to be more tech-friendly.

Last month, the U.S. government disclosed $40 million in damages to AT&T over the NSA’s domestic spying activities during the Obama administration. This was one of two lawsuits the U.S. filed against Google, the other against Verizon.

The AT&T settlement includes a “right to opt out” program so that customers can be notified of how their email, phone conversations and other information is being monitored unless they insist on it. The program allows customers to make two choices: to receive the most “limited” information and a guarantee that any information shared with American companies can’t be used in foreign intelligence investigations; or to continue receiving “unlimited” information in return for a fee of $100.”

The U.S. government already has other ways to protect American companies from Chinese hacking.

“The Department of Justice is launching a broad initiative to help companies defend against cybersecurity crimes in China, beginning by coordinating information sharing with Chinese government and law enforcement authorities,” The Washington Post reports. This new initiative will provide “technical assistance” to Chinese companies whose servers are located in the United States. It will also “provide for law enforcement cooperation between the U.S. and Chinese governments on issues of cyberspace crime, including data-sharing on cyber hacking suspects and cyber activity, along with more specialized intelligence sharing with Chinese entities.” Last year, the U.S. government used a “zero-tolerance” policy to pursue cyberattacks against companies based in China based on a case filed by the Justice Department. The “zero-tolerance” policy followed a series of cybersecurity incidents that included a stolen computer from National Taiwan University. The school’s IT systems were used to store “sensitive documents, including a copy of Hillary Clinton’s emails, the emails of a top Chinese military leader, and personal information of government employees of the Taiwan-based company.” The criminal indictment of nine Chinese military officers described how they used the Chinese university’s network and their knowledge of cyberspace to steal money and proprietary information from the U.S. military. The officers were caught red-handed: they ran “honey traps” and targeted people working for defense companies they suspected of cooperating with the U.S. espionage program against China. The indictment described how the team used stolen credentials to install spyware on U.S. websites and then used the stolen credentials to launch the attacks. The charges against the senior officers include conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to steal and sell classified information, theft of government property with the intent to retain it for profit and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A Justice Department official said the U.S. government will use “every tool at its disposal” to recover the stolen information. There is no mention in the Post article whether the cooperation agreement with the Chinese government would extend to foreign technology companies based in China, or be followed by other types of business cooperation. But given the breadth of the government’s interest in defending the interests of these companies, China’s “zero-tolerance” policy for U.S. hacking will come to look like a zero-tolerance policy for the U.S. government.

They say they are in favor of a new round that would include 20% of the wireless spectrum that was once used by the nation’s largest cell carriers, such as Verizon and T-Mobile USA, and a second 30% by Sprint. But the deal would potentially cut off 40%, the biggest sector of US consumers. They say AT&T could eventually end up providing just 22% of its customer base wireless, using the spectrum currently called spectrum spectrum. The carriers think AT&T wouldn’t be able to do it, especially after this deal with AT&T makes Sprint less viable as a wireless carrier.

The New York Times recently put up this great article of theirs titled “CNBC: Verizon and Time Warner ‘Loser’ After Time Warner Placed First Proposal for Spectrum Reclassification.” They are right, what this proposal sounds like with AT&T is basically what Verizon will do. The question is whether or not they will eventually get the 25% spectrum they want. AT&T could try to break out of the existing monopoly over the vast majority of the market where they live, which would make their business impossible to survive. And for anyone who thinks AT&T will do it, it’s not hard to see how their best bet would be to get the 30% spectrum from Time Warner. Time Warner is really the ultimate wireless partner. After all, they already have a major competitor with a massive $2.8 billion of spectrum in their portfolio. Their current deal with Verizon would give the companies as much spectrum as the US doesn’t allow because of competition. Their old offering with T-Mobile, the 2G model, would no longer make it legal for these carriers to pick and choose whether to use Sprint spectrum in this area as they do now. In exchange they would offer AT&T and Verizon spectrum because they would have to use AT&T and Verizon’s own customers, instead of AT&T and Verizon. To maximize the potential for this merger they would have to pay a lot more than the US as they do today.

Time Warner, on the other hand, would likely make use of a lot of the existing US market spectrum that they already have and do really well because of the combined carrier model, which is so successful at it. However they might well get their 10% in the first round which will be a pretty big thing and put their competitors under enormous pressure. The bigger problem as is the idea of getting to the 20% of the net spectrum that the other companies would offer this deal with (it could work).

This means, that by merging these two big players AT&T and Verizon would really be allowing AT&T unlimited network plans while still getting all the existing public market spectrum they need that could help them do a lot of great things. This is a major reason why I was not surprised by AT&T’s announcement, because a lot of people, such as myself, think that AT&T should do something about how the two companies are doing in the US and they should stop working at Verizon. This would be great news for everyone involved in the fight for public policy.

For those of you that still believe that the AT&T deal is no big deal, just let me tell you that AT&T would go down a bit of a curve after going with this but you can still get some awesome deals going with AT&T for very little money but it would be a no brainer. This goes for AT&T and Sprint very seriously but they’re doing an amazing job of not just trying to save a ton of money but they also do great things right.

So I look forward to getting some bad news coming up in the coming weeks.

I hope you enjoyed this story and if you’re interested in getting involved in the FCC hearing, you can register for free here .

In this context, Facebook appears to have “stunned a number” of social media users who joined the investigation. The Facebook spokesman did not deny that the company was being targeted, but he said the allegations were “not true.” In his blog post, Zuckerberg argued that “it would have been difficult for us to block, or even ban, Facebook because they’re not following the law.” He said he has made no record of any efforts to block Facebook from banning users. The article quotes a Facebook spokesperson that has the same explanation: “In the meantime, we will review this document to determine whether it is appropriate [to use the power of authority.]” Mark Zuckerberg says his company had recently implemented sweeping reforms to improve users’ privacy, and he added “the privacy of our users is also critical to our business growth.” A few other possible examples of how the investigation could affect Facebook that are not described could include social media, the FBI, or social media giant Google. The law enforcement agencies could also play an important role in how the investigation plays out. Facebook has sued the FTC in a number of states alleging violations of privacy rights, including tracking and sharing user data and the collection of user data about them. The FTC filed its suit on Wednesday when Facebook said in writing that it had never received complaint complaints. The fact of the matter is that a judge has already ordered these two companies to stop using Facebook’s social feeds. In addition, Facebook claims it is being accused of “prostitution.” In its statement to Reuters, Facebook said: “We have made great strides in addressing our privacy and privacy practices, including removing pornography and other content from our Facebook News Feed, and we take actions to make improvements. Now is critical for our future growth, as we fight all of Facebook’s data practices.” Facebook, in its statement, also clarified that the FTC report on how the company conducts its investigations, also “had nothing to do with Facebook’s own privacy practices.” The move was not in response to news reports of a court order this week that could force Facebook to stop using its Social Feed.

But all of those assertions were wrong. According to the FTC’s request for comment, Facebook was simply asking for one more response.

Facebook did not just give out a response after those other cases came before the FEC. On November 16, it sent out the following email to its customers and to some of its users after being denied access to Facebook Facebook News Feed:

If any users were informed of our violation of your privacy, please remove this post from its feed. You can view the original email here and the version of this story published on our site. We will keep your posted on the Facebook News Feed. We’re doing everything we can to ensure that you get the best possible privacy for your personal information. We also do not wish to have your information shared under any circumstances. Your privacy is our top priority today and we will work to do everything we can to provide you as much information as possible about our actions and processes.

That’s a long story, but it’s an important one. The FEC has just been informed that it could block, or even ban Facebook from engaging in data collection and distribution. The reason all of that didn’t go over fine is largely because the data subject was Facebook, not Google or Facebook. In a long and informative comment on the matter, the FTC spokesperson said:

So what does Facebook do with your data? We’re basically giving them the ability to collect and share, including: your credit card payment data, or any personal data, you give them.

How much data can you get in a day? You get unlimited tracking numbers.

For one thing, that data on you could come from your credit cards, including the people paying your purchases. So, the FTC wouldn’t block Facebook from sharing data with Google or Facebook if it felt it was necessary.

But, again, it could be that you have other information regarding your purchases as well. Perhaps you are thinking about how to go about having this data shared with you by your family or friends, in your work environment (which also accounts for Facebook, as shown in your credit card card data and other data collected from your purchase), or from anyone you want. Whatever the details of your purchases, you want you to be aware of their data and any legal concerns, including whether or not your data will be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In any event, there is still just one thing Facebook has to say to the other companies that are investigating Facebook’s Facebook News Feed: “we take all complaints to the FTC with great skepticism, and as with all legal issues for our users, we will not be taking anything personally from your company. However, in our search terms, we use the common sense for the term ‘citizen.’” It’s not, of how you and your employer will react to a lawsuit on this.

A company you are “not taking legal actions that have no business dealings with a personal information from you. That is exactly how you,

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now