Not really, when his opposition IS telling people to riot and be violent at his rallies. It is not the Trump supporters who are starting the violence, it is the people being paid by the various Soros front groups who are starting the violence in almost all of the cases.
There is ZERO evidence to even suggest that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice...not even enough to begin an investigation.
The reason I say that is that if James Comey thought Trump was trying to obstruct justice in the conversation mentioned in the memo he supposedly wrote (no one has actually seen that memo except for some "unnamed sources" who supposedly read from it to a New York Times reporter) he was legally obligated to inform the appropriate person at the Justice Department, which he did not do. So, either, James Comey did not believe that Donald Trump was trying to obstruct justice when he wrote that memo (assuming the memo actually exists), or he was guilty of knowingly committing a felony.
Cable companies were given monopolies in each territory they occupy by the municipal governments that run the cities in those territories.
Congress passed the law which allowed those local governments to give out monopolies. Without that law, those local monopolies would have been illegal under existing federal laws.
Fix the monopoly problem and net neutrality is irrelevant. Leave the monopolies in place and no amount of rules is going to fix the problem "net neutrality" is aimed at. As a matter of fact, "net neutrality" rules will make the problem worse because they will make it even harder to break up the monopolies.
The problem you are pointing out is not so much that they think they are more important than they are (although that is an element to it). The problem is that everybody who comes up with this idea thinks, "I can make money doing this." Which leads everyone else to think, "Why should they make the money? Why not me?"
A related problem is that whoever sponsors the single sign one that become THE single sign on will forever after have a competitive advantage over their direct competitors in whatever their business is. The result being that those competitors will not sign up for it (for good reason).
How come no one thought of this before?
Oh wait, they did. It didn't work out because it is not as great of an idea as it sounds at first.
You have one logon for ALL of your online accounts. That's great only one ID and password to remember to get access to everything you do online. Of course, that also means only one ID and password to hack for someone ELSE to get access to all of your online accounts. Then once they do, aside from the losses you might take from the hack, how do you get your account back?
Studies have repeatedly shown that children who spend all day in childcare while both parents are working have greater behavioral issues and more learning issues than children where one parent stays home. It does not appear to matter which parent stays home, although I suspect that the sample size where the father stays home is too small to be conclusive.
Apparently you do not know what the "D" in the MD degree stands for. I will give you a hint, it stands for the same thing as the "D" in PhD.
Of course the fact that you cannot even read the links you cite indicates that you are either a troll or an idiot (maybe both). From the Wikipedia article you linked about the J.D. degree:
The Juris Doctor degree (J.D. or JD), also known as the Doctor of Jurisprudence degree (J.D., JD, D.Jur. or DJur), is a graduate-entry professional degree in law and one of several Doctor of Law degrees.... It has the academic standing of... a professional doctorate in the United States (in all three jurisdictions the same as other professional degrees such as M.D. or D.D.S.)
There was a time when a selection of merchants decided to sell all of their product at what they felt was a moral profit margin (I do not know what that margin was, it was probably more than 10%). Study the history of markets and you will learn that the reason we had the economic system where just about everything was sold for a flat price was because Quaker merchants felt it was dishonest to haggle over prices. They set their prices at what they considered to be a moral profit margin and that was the price they charged everyone. You either paid their asking price, or you went somewhere else...but, their asking price was the same for every customer. It did not take long before any merchant who did not follow such a strategy was out of business.
Except that the technology was not sabotaged. It was merely revealed that it existed. The thing is: it is no longer a matter of this technology could be misused. We now know that this technology will be misused.
In fact, the evidence suggests that our government(s) will use this technology to suppress legitimate opposition and not to protect its citizens from malefactors.
Well, considering that in this case the courts ruled that the medical facility is only liable for 30% of the cost of "upkeep" there is something to that.
However, you are overlooking the context of the original post. The original post clearly implies that the poster would not pay anything even if the courts failed to order the support you are suggesting. In such a case, these two option ARE the only options.
Considering your signature, I really hope you are being sarcastic. There is reasonable evidence that the Obama Administration used the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. to spy on his political opponents (in particular those who opposed the Iran Nuclear deal, an example where there is no support for the idea that those being spied on domestically were involved in anything which gave the government legal authority to spy on them). It is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that previous Administrations had done the same thing, but they were subtle enough in the way that they used what they learned that way that it is possible they were not doing so.
Because lots of commercial database applications(ERPs, CRMs, MRPs, etc) are built on top of it. I have never worked for a company which builds those types of applications, so I do not know why they chose MS SQL (I have some educated guesses, but I do not know).
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose you think it was Trump supporters who threatened violence if Ann Coulter spoke at Berkeley?
Not really, when his opposition IS telling people to riot and be violent at his rallies. It is not the Trump supporters who are starting the violence, it is the people being paid by the various Soros front groups who are starting the violence in almost all of the cases.
There is ZERO evidence to even suggest that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice...not even enough to begin an investigation.
The reason I say that is that if James Comey thought Trump was trying to obstruct justice in the conversation mentioned in the memo he supposedly wrote (no one has actually seen that memo except for some "unnamed sources" who supposedly read from it to a New York Times reporter) he was legally obligated to inform the appropriate person at the Justice Department, which he did not do. So, either, James Comey did not believe that Donald Trump was trying to obstruct justice when he wrote that memo (assuming the memo actually exists), or he was guilty of knowingly committing a felony.
Umm, you are apparently unaware that Bezos is a Democrat.
Cable companies were given monopolies in each territory they occupy by the municipal governments that run the cities in those territories.
Congress passed the law which allowed those local governments to give out monopolies. Without that law, those local monopolies would have been illegal under existing federal laws.
Cable companies were given monopolies in particular areas by law passed by Congress. So, cable company monopolies are legal.
Get rid of the monopolies and there is no need to regulate "net neutrality".
Fix the monopoly problem and net neutrality is irrelevant. Leave the monopolies in place and no amount of rules is going to fix the problem "net neutrality" is aimed at. As a matter of fact, "net neutrality" rules will make the problem worse because they will make it even harder to break up the monopolies.
I remember when I was that naive.
The problem you are pointing out is not so much that they think they are more important than they are (although that is an element to it). The problem is that everybody who comes up with this idea thinks, "I can make money doing this." Which leads everyone else to think, "Why should they make the money? Why not me?"
A related problem is that whoever sponsors the single sign one that become THE single sign on will forever after have a competitive advantage over their direct competitors in whatever their business is. The result being that those competitors will not sign up for it (for good reason).
How come no one thought of this before?
Oh wait, they did. It didn't work out because it is not as great of an idea as it sounds at first.
You have one logon for ALL of your online accounts. That's great only one ID and password to remember to get access to everything you do online. Of course, that also means only one ID and password to hack for someone ELSE to get access to all of your online accounts. Then once they do, aside from the losses you might take from the hack, how do you get your account back?
What people seem to be missing is that less important does not mean unimportant and while 94 is a large number it is smaller than 95.
All I have to say in response to this is that you clearly have not been paying attention if you think corporate ad buyers are conservative.
The problem with this is that EXACT formula works to spread bad ideas...and is extremely painful if you are in the minority opposing the bad idea(s).
But the people running this protest don't want there to be free speech. They want only speech they approve of to be allowed.
Studies have repeatedly shown that children who spend all day in childcare while both parents are working have greater behavioral issues and more learning issues than children where one parent stays home. It does not appear to matter which parent stays home, although I suspect that the sample size where the father stays home is too small to be conclusive.
You mean countries where mothers are perfectly content to allow strangers to raise their children?
I thought that was the case, but did not want to go looking for a citation.
Of course the fact that you cannot even read the links you cite indicates that you are either a troll or an idiot (maybe both). From the Wikipedia article you linked about the J.D. degree:
The Juris Doctor degree (J.D. or JD), also known as the Doctor of Jurisprudence degree (J.D., JD, D.Jur. or DJur), is a graduate-entry professional degree in law and one of several Doctor of Law degrees.... It has the academic standing of ... a professional doctorate in the United States (in all three jurisdictions the same as other professional degrees such as M.D. or D.D.S.)
No, declaring yourself an engineer is a violation of the regulations in most states.
Which I would consider a violation of the First Amendment (the courts have ruled similarly in some cases).
There was a time when a selection of merchants decided to sell all of their product at what they felt was a moral profit margin (I do not know what that margin was, it was probably more than 10%). Study the history of markets and you will learn that the reason we had the economic system where just about everything was sold for a flat price was because Quaker merchants felt it was dishonest to haggle over prices. They set their prices at what they considered to be a moral profit margin and that was the price they charged everyone. You either paid their asking price, or you went somewhere else...but, their asking price was the same for every customer. It did not take long before any merchant who did not follow such a strategy was out of business.
Except that the technology was not sabotaged. It was merely revealed that it existed. The thing is: it is no longer a matter of this technology could be misused. We now know that this technology will be misused.
In fact, the evidence suggests that our government(s) will use this technology to suppress legitimate opposition and not to protect its citizens from malefactors.
Well, considering that in this case the courts ruled that the medical facility is only liable for 30% of the cost of "upkeep" there is something to that.
However, you are overlooking the context of the original post. The original post clearly implies that the poster would not pay anything even if the courts failed to order the support you are suggesting. In such a case, these two option ARE the only options.
Considering your signature, I really hope you are being sarcastic. There is reasonable evidence that the Obama Administration used the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. to spy on his political opponents (in particular those who opposed the Iran Nuclear deal, an example where there is no support for the idea that those being spied on domestically were involved in anything which gave the government legal authority to spy on them). It is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that previous Administrations had done the same thing, but they were subtle enough in the way that they used what they learned that way that it is possible they were not doing so.
Because lots of commercial database applications(ERPs, CRMs, MRPs, etc) are built on top of it. I have never worked for a company which builds those types of applications, so I do not know why they chose MS SQL (I have some educated guesses, but I do not know).