Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
At a time when so many Americans continue to fall through the gaping holes in our healthcare system, it's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional debate in Washington than the charade this week over the Republican effort to repeal President Obama's healthcare law.
Consider that, to name just a few points:
• The number of officially uninsured tops 50 million,
• Half of all Americans are considered to have pre-existing conditions and thus subject to rampant insurance denials (and ways big insurers will surely find to game the system even if the law remains as is),
• Arizona is denying life-saving transplants to poor people on Medicaid,
• Blue Shield is ignoring protests and pushing through premium rate hikes in California of up to 59 percent for individuals
• A UNICEF report ranked the U.S. a pathetic 22nd in health well-being for our children.
Yet Congress is going a though a Kabuki theater that will end without repeal or real, comprehensive solutions to the ongoing healthcare crisis.
Here's a Top 10 list for the inanity of the repeal debate:
1. The public is already rightfully confused. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month found that nearly as many people (20%) favor expanding the law as favor repealing it entirely (26%). And, perhaps, most significantly, 43% of the public said they were still "confused" about the law.
2. Despite the rhetoric from the right, the law was not a "government takeover," much less "socialized medicine." In fact, it serves to prop up and protect the broken private system from a more fundamental reform, single-payer/expanding Medicare to cover everyone, just as President Nixon pushed HMOs as an alternative to single-payer 40 years ago (as Talking Points Memo noted last week).
3. Many Republicans do not really care if people are covered, they care about business making money. The "alternatives" discussed by the repeal crowd would unleash more of the same "magic" of the market that created the current crisis in access, cost, and quality.
4. Democrats and liberals have, ironically, become the foremost champions of "individual mandate," a concept first proposed by Republicans and adopted in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor Mitt Romney (with a law which has been steadily unraveling in rising costs with the state reducing eligibility and covered services). Yet Democrats now promote the deception that forced purchase of private insurance constitutes "universal" healthcare, while Republicans wail that idea they once loved is unconstitutional.
5. Though the Republicans publicly say they oppose the law in part because it is unfriendly to business, nearly all the giants in the healthcare industry backed the law.
6. Despite a desperate need for fundamental change, proponents of the most far-reaching reform are dismissed as "naive" and "not serious". Only those who support an unsustainable status quo in corporate control of our health were granted a seat at the table by the Democrats, and anything more than the most token coverage in the media.
7. In an environment where "objectivity" is defined as letting both sides have their say - as long as you stay within the parameters of the story as defined by the media - the side that is willing to tell bigger lies wins the most ink. Thus the debate was distorted by deliberate deceptions about "death panels," seniors being cut off Medicare, and similar fantasies.
8. Challenging the efficacy of healthcare as a commodity is off the table no matter how many lives are compromised and discarded. Thus, we have a law that is not universal, does little to control costs in rising premiums and un-payable medical bills, improve quality or reduce disparities. And the repeal fans want it to do even less.
9. Few are discussing that the healthcare crisis will grow if the law is repealed or left as is. Insurers, drug companies, and providers will continue to price gouge, insurers will continue to cherry pick healthier customers and find pretexts to deny needed care, the medical technology both sides promote as a panacea will put more patients at risk by eroding professional caretaker judgment, long waits for care will remain, and the ongoing recession will produce a further shredding of the frail safety net, especially as more public hospitals and clinics are forced to close.
10. While everyone talks about a global economy, no substantive consideration was given by policy makers or the media to the way other industrialized countries assure health coverage with lower costs and better outcomes through national or single payer systems, all while failing to challenge those who falsely claim "we have the best healthcare system in the world" (we don't).
Instead of repealing the law, let's urge Congress to expand it by opening up the cost-efficient, universal, equitable Medicare program to everyone.
benchcraft company portland or
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
benchcraft company scam
Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
At a time when so many Americans continue to fall through the gaping holes in our healthcare system, it's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional debate in Washington than the charade this week over the Republican effort to repeal President Obama's healthcare law.
Consider that, to name just a few points:
• The number of officially uninsured tops 50 million,
• Half of all Americans are considered to have pre-existing conditions and thus subject to rampant insurance denials (and ways big insurers will surely find to game the system even if the law remains as is),
• Arizona is denying life-saving transplants to poor people on Medicaid,
• Blue Shield is ignoring protests and pushing through premium rate hikes in California of up to 59 percent for individuals
• A UNICEF report ranked the U.S. a pathetic 22nd in health well-being for our children.
Yet Congress is going a though a Kabuki theater that will end without repeal or real, comprehensive solutions to the ongoing healthcare crisis.
Here's a Top 10 list for the inanity of the repeal debate:
1. The public is already rightfully confused. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month found that nearly as many people (20%) favor expanding the law as favor repealing it entirely (26%). And, perhaps, most significantly, 43% of the public said they were still "confused" about the law.
2. Despite the rhetoric from the right, the law was not a "government takeover," much less "socialized medicine." In fact, it serves to prop up and protect the broken private system from a more fundamental reform, single-payer/expanding Medicare to cover everyone, just as President Nixon pushed HMOs as an alternative to single-payer 40 years ago (as Talking Points Memo noted last week).
3. Many Republicans do not really care if people are covered, they care about business making money. The "alternatives" discussed by the repeal crowd would unleash more of the same "magic" of the market that created the current crisis in access, cost, and quality.
4. Democrats and liberals have, ironically, become the foremost champions of "individual mandate," a concept first proposed by Republicans and adopted in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor Mitt Romney (with a law which has been steadily unraveling in rising costs with the state reducing eligibility and covered services). Yet Democrats now promote the deception that forced purchase of private insurance constitutes "universal" healthcare, while Republicans wail that idea they once loved is unconstitutional.
5. Though the Republicans publicly say they oppose the law in part because it is unfriendly to business, nearly all the giants in the healthcare industry backed the law.
6. Despite a desperate need for fundamental change, proponents of the most far-reaching reform are dismissed as "naive" and "not serious". Only those who support an unsustainable status quo in corporate control of our health were granted a seat at the table by the Democrats, and anything more than the most token coverage in the media.
7. In an environment where "objectivity" is defined as letting both sides have their say - as long as you stay within the parameters of the story as defined by the media - the side that is willing to tell bigger lies wins the most ink. Thus the debate was distorted by deliberate deceptions about "death panels," seniors being cut off Medicare, and similar fantasies.
8. Challenging the efficacy of healthcare as a commodity is off the table no matter how many lives are compromised and discarded. Thus, we have a law that is not universal, does little to control costs in rising premiums and un-payable medical bills, improve quality or reduce disparities. And the repeal fans want it to do even less.
9. Few are discussing that the healthcare crisis will grow if the law is repealed or left as is. Insurers, drug companies, and providers will continue to price gouge, insurers will continue to cherry pick healthier customers and find pretexts to deny needed care, the medical technology both sides promote as a panacea will put more patients at risk by eroding professional caretaker judgment, long waits for care will remain, and the ongoing recession will produce a further shredding of the frail safety net, especially as more public hospitals and clinics are forced to close.
10. While everyone talks about a global economy, no substantive consideration was given by policy makers or the media to the way other industrialized countries assure health coverage with lower costs and better outcomes through national or single payer systems, all while failing to challenge those who falsely claim "we have the best healthcare system in the world" (we don't).
Instead of repealing the law, let's urge Congress to expand it by opening up the cost-efficient, universal, equitable Medicare program to everyone.
benchcraft company scam
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
bench craft company reviews
[reefeed]
benchcraft company portland or
bench craft company reviews
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
benchcraft company portland or
Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
At a time when so many Americans continue to fall through the gaping holes in our healthcare system, it's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional debate in Washington than the charade this week over the Republican effort to repeal President Obama's healthcare law.
Consider that, to name just a few points:
• The number of officially uninsured tops 50 million,
• Half of all Americans are considered to have pre-existing conditions and thus subject to rampant insurance denials (and ways big insurers will surely find to game the system even if the law remains as is),
• Arizona is denying life-saving transplants to poor people on Medicaid,
• Blue Shield is ignoring protests and pushing through premium rate hikes in California of up to 59 percent for individuals
• A UNICEF report ranked the U.S. a pathetic 22nd in health well-being for our children.
Yet Congress is going a though a Kabuki theater that will end without repeal or real, comprehensive solutions to the ongoing healthcare crisis.
Here's a Top 10 list for the inanity of the repeal debate:
1. The public is already rightfully confused. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month found that nearly as many people (20%) favor expanding the law as favor repealing it entirely (26%). And, perhaps, most significantly, 43% of the public said they were still "confused" about the law.
2. Despite the rhetoric from the right, the law was not a "government takeover," much less "socialized medicine." In fact, it serves to prop up and protect the broken private system from a more fundamental reform, single-payer/expanding Medicare to cover everyone, just as President Nixon pushed HMOs as an alternative to single-payer 40 years ago (as Talking Points Memo noted last week).
3. Many Republicans do not really care if people are covered, they care about business making money. The "alternatives" discussed by the repeal crowd would unleash more of the same "magic" of the market that created the current crisis in access, cost, and quality.
4. Democrats and liberals have, ironically, become the foremost champions of "individual mandate," a concept first proposed by Republicans and adopted in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor Mitt Romney (with a law which has been steadily unraveling in rising costs with the state reducing eligibility and covered services). Yet Democrats now promote the deception that forced purchase of private insurance constitutes "universal" healthcare, while Republicans wail that idea they once loved is unconstitutional.
5. Though the Republicans publicly say they oppose the law in part because it is unfriendly to business, nearly all the giants in the healthcare industry backed the law.
6. Despite a desperate need for fundamental change, proponents of the most far-reaching reform are dismissed as "naive" and "not serious". Only those who support an unsustainable status quo in corporate control of our health were granted a seat at the table by the Democrats, and anything more than the most token coverage in the media.
7. In an environment where "objectivity" is defined as letting both sides have their say - as long as you stay within the parameters of the story as defined by the media - the side that is willing to tell bigger lies wins the most ink. Thus the debate was distorted by deliberate deceptions about "death panels," seniors being cut off Medicare, and similar fantasies.
8. Challenging the efficacy of healthcare as a commodity is off the table no matter how many lives are compromised and discarded. Thus, we have a law that is not universal, does little to control costs in rising premiums and un-payable medical bills, improve quality or reduce disparities. And the repeal fans want it to do even less.
9. Few are discussing that the healthcare crisis will grow if the law is repealed or left as is. Insurers, drug companies, and providers will continue to price gouge, insurers will continue to cherry pick healthier customers and find pretexts to deny needed care, the medical technology both sides promote as a panacea will put more patients at risk by eroding professional caretaker judgment, long waits for care will remain, and the ongoing recession will produce a further shredding of the frail safety net, especially as more public hospitals and clinics are forced to close.
10. While everyone talks about a global economy, no substantive consideration was given by policy makers or the media to the way other industrialized countries assure health coverage with lower costs and better outcomes through national or single payer systems, all while failing to challenge those who falsely claim "we have the best healthcare system in the world" (we don't).
Instead of repealing the law, let's urge Congress to expand it by opening up the cost-efficient, universal, equitable Medicare program to everyone.
bench craft company reviews
benchcraft company scam
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
bench craft company reviews
benchcraft company scam
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
benchcraft company scam
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
benchcraft company portland or
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
how to lose weight fast benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company portland or
benchcraft company scam
bench craft company reviews
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
benchcraft company scam
A lot of people have been making a great deal of money thanks to real estate flipping. This may be a little surprising to learn when you consider the fact that the property market in the United States is growing increasingly weaker. There seems to be a mixed message being sent here and this may make you actually stop to wonder if the end of purchasing property to quickly fix up and resell is nearing its end. For a lot of people, unfortunately the answer to this question is "yes."
While a lot of people have made great money with real estate flipping in the recent years, there is a key to this. The key lies in there being a very buoyant property market. As such, it really does not have anything to do with these people being very skillful whenever they are buying and selling a home. In simple terms, you will most likely make some money in this rising real estate market, even if your flipping skills are not very good. This is the reason why you are hearing so many successful flip stories, even in the most unlikely of places.
However, there are some real problems that can become apparent when you are involved with real estate flipping. For instance, flipping will not work very well whenever the real estate market has gone flat or is on a steady decline. In fact, it is at this time that you could take a real financial hit, especially if they have paid too much money for a property that they have purchased, spent too much money working to improve the property or have undertaken the wrong type of improvements. With a buoyant market, making these types of mistakes will not hurt you nearly as bad.
Of course this does not mean that you should not get involved in real estate flipping anymore. It does mean that there are some things that you will need to remember though. First of all, the real estate market is not the same everywhere you look. Even when the market is flat, there are still pockets of growth. The opposite can also be said though. This is why you have to do your research properly so that you can find markets that you will want to take advantage of.
Another thing that you should keep in mind whenever you are involved with real estate flipping is that if you have a nicely renovated flip there will always be a market for this. So, yes there is still money to be made in flipping houses. You just need to be more disciplined about doing your research now than ever before. Take the time to find the right house to flip, in an area where people are desiring to live, and with a house that is not going to become a bottomless financial pit whenever it comes to needing improvements. This really is quite crucial if you do not want to end up producing a financial flop.
big seminar 14
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
big seminar 14
Denver Broncos <b>News</b>: Horse Tracks - 2/6/11 - Mile High Report
Horse Tracks -- Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee.
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
The First Look at <b>News</b> Corp.'s 'The Daily' - NYTimes.com
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
big seminar 14
No comments:
Post a Comment