Quote
TronDD
Do it! If you buy a $500 bike for a 1000 mile race, I, who has never worked on a motorcycle, will help crew for you.

Tim.

Quote
Anders Green
Now you made me go look up the technical definition of "market correction".

I'm still interested in what you think, though. If not "market correction", then ???

It's all just philosophy, since I don't think anyone is crossing the street to go visit dealer A.

Anders

Quote
EricW
Sno*Drift usually has their first draft of their supps up by now based on history, but things are still silent. Anyone up there know what's going on? Curious if the rumored price increases are going to show clearly in the 2013 supps. For posterity's sake, the 2012 entry fees:

Cash Entries received on or before
Regional
Early Bird
12/30/2011 1/06/2012 1/13/2012 After 1/13/2012
Sno*Drift Championship Rally $1,200 $1,800 $2,400
Sno Regional Rally (Friday) $350 $450 $800
Drift Regional Rally (Saturday) $350 $450 $800
Both Regional Rallies $600 $700 $900 $1,600
Championship & Regional Rallies $1,400 $2,000 $2,600

Credit Card Entries received on or before
Regional
Early Bird
12/30/2011 1/08/2012 1/13/2012 After 1/13/2012
Sno*Drift Championship Rally $1,238 $1,856 $2,475
Sno Regional Rally (Friday) $362 $464 $828
Drift Regional Rally (Saturday) $362 $464 $828
Both Regional Rallies $620 $724 $932 $1,656
Championship & Regional Rallies $1,444 $2,070 $2,691

Quote
Wannabe
I said it before, I'll say it again. Ticker: VHC

Things are only getting started.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/VHC/key-developments

This isn't the solution but maybe it can help some through the down time.

Quote
Josh Wimpey

Quote
Wannabe
I said it before, I'll say it again. Ticker: VHC

Things are only getting started.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/VHC/key-developments

This isn't the solution but maybe it can help some through the down time.

Really, invest in patent trolls is your solution?

Quote

Hot on the heels of the $368 million payout in the FaceTime suit, patent holding firm VirnetX is trolling Apple again, this time with claims that both the iPhone 5 and iPad mini infringe upon four patents. Both devices, along with the latest iPod and Macs, were added to the lawsuit. Just like the Facetime case could result in a ban of the iPhone 4S, this latest wrinkle might put sales of Apple’s newest products in jeopardy ahead of the fast-approaching holiday season…

The four patents that VirnetX alleges Apple infringed upon cover secure Internet communications: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 , 7,418,504 , 7,921,211 and 7,490,151.

VirnetX wrote in a media release:

In its complaint, VirnetX seeks both damages and injunctive relief.

The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers.

Due to their release dates, these products were not included in the previous lawsuit that concluded with a Jury verdict on November 6, 2012.

Earlier this week, Apple was found liable of patent infringement in a Texas court and the federal jury awarded VirnetX a cool $368 million in damages.

Apple is expected to appeal.

Not surprisingly, the Zephyr Cove, Nevada-based VirnetX used the patent plaintiff-friendly Eastern District court in Tyler to file its complaint. Patent owners turn to Eastern Texas like corporations turn to Delaware – both reliably produce favorable court judgements.

VirnetX is fast becoming labelled a “patent troll” akin to Lodsys, a firm whose main product is lawsuits against deep-pocked defendants.

Brian Barrett of Gizmodo writes:

VirnetX is not a company that, strictly speaking, makes things. It is, instead, a company that collects patents the way joyless millionaires collect hermetically sealed comic books: for profit.

It’s unclear what the patent holding company has to gain by seeking both damages and “injunctive relief” in its case against Apple.

Usually, patent firms pester other companies for lucrative licensing arrangements. While the $368 million Apple would pay is just walking-around money for the goliath, the amount is nearly ten times that what VirnetX reportedly makes.

The only reason I can see for the patent company to seek a sales ban of Apple products is to squeeze more cash from the iPhone maker in exchange for not slowing holiday sales. Of course, Apple could solve the whole issue by cutting a check and buying its courtroom annoyance.

Should Apple just write a cheque to VirnetX?

Quote
brianallmotor
-you can not climb out of a pit by digging it deeper.
-when in debt you stop spending. you do not borrow more money.
-if a business is loosing money it doesnt need more investors or capitol. it needs to cut costs.

i bet if RA sold the RV they could afford the $200 per entrant for the next 3 years. they would save more $$ by not fueling the RV.

it's time to liquidate assets, not raise prices.