Why don't you tell us what country you're posting from? You're obviously not from the US, and you have a very poor grasp of United States history and government.
What they probably did is figured they'd demand this, get sued, and once the lawsuit got rolling settle for a lesser amount, and walk away with a net profit even considering legal fees even if they didn't get as much back as they initially demanded. What I'm curious about is the vesting requirement; do the employees vest if they're fired?
" Government, decided it was a good idea to allow banks to create securities from said mortgages for people who couldn't afford a house."
"Allow"? You're blaming government for not regulating enough? The rest of your statement is a shrieking tirade about how the government should stay out of the way of business. Then you say it's their fault for staying out of the way of business.
The Bible has probably had more of an impact on the world than any other book in history. It is impossible to truly understand western history over the past two thousand years without understanding the Bible. Whether you believe in anything it says is supremely irrelevant.
"The Tea Party and the Republicans do *not* want do get rid of regulations concerning uncontaminated food and a clean environment. They do want to get rid of ***hats like yourself who think more government equals effective government."
Baen is a publisher. They could sell the books for a penny if they wanted. Amazon is a reseller. They are not going to sell the books for less than they paid for them.
Activists are our usually out to make money by suing,
That is just ridiculous and you are completely unable to substantiate that claim. The overwhelming majority of activists never sue anyone. When activists DO sue people, they usually ask for injunctive relief, which means even if they win they get zero money.
I was talking to a PhD candidate (coincidentally, a hydrogeologist working on groundwater issues) who was about to defend her dissertation about the job market for her field; I asked if she was willing to work for an oil company and the sheer revulsion that passed over this girl's face was actually a little surprising in its vehemence.
Which is so unconcerned about fracking that they just released this month their plan to conduct an in-depth study of the effect of fracking on groundwater.
Ground Water Protection Council
Which is so unconcerned about fracking that they created a database to track chemicals used in hydrofracking at the individual well level.
Amazing that the most ignorant comments get modded up. Group-think at its finest.
"You should believe this because these groups believe it, and if you don't then you're just stuck in group-think!"
And someone who thinks the sole question concerning hydrofracking's effect on groundwater is what you're pumping into the ground really needs to brush up on their geochemistry.
See Osborn SG, et al. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(20):8172–8176 (2011); doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108.
That is an extraordinary claim -- that CO2 is only a greenhouse gas in the absence of water vapor. Do you have any support for this remarkable assertion?
Not in colloquial English. Words have specific meanings, and "creationist" refers to something specific that your definition doesn't accurately capture.
"It doesn't matter if their stance is "I don't think the big bang was an accident" "
Frankly, that's a strawman. You're essentially saying all those who believe in evolution are atheists, which is demonstrably false. If you went to an evolutionary biology conference and said "I believe God created the Big Bang, and once life arose, evolution kicked in" most would have no problem with that and would not qualify you as a "creationist."
A problem with programmers in general is they tend to be very poor at self-evaluation. Just like most people think they're better-than-average drivers, most programmers think they're better-than-average programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you tell us what country you're posting from? You're obviously not from the US, and you have a very poor grasp of United States history and government.
What they probably did is figured they'd demand this, get sued, and once the lawsuit got rolling settle for a lesser amount, and walk away with a net profit even considering legal fees even if they didn't get as much back as they initially demanded. What I'm curious about is the vesting requirement; do the employees vest if they're fired?
Donating money to a lawyer is like donating blood to a vampire. It makes them stronger and then they hurt more innocent people.
Try donating your money to someone who deserves it, like these people [eff.org]
"Don't donate money to lawyers! Donate it so someone who deserves it, like these lawyers!"
Easy, one time pad to encrypt your one time pad exchange.
So you think Glass-Steagall is a good idea? Private companies should be heavily regulated to stop expanding their business into new areas?
You are making no sense.
" Government, decided it was a good idea to allow banks to create securities from said mortgages for people who couldn't afford a house."
"Allow"? You're blaming government for not regulating enough? The rest of your statement is a shrieking tirade about how the government should stay out of the way of business. Then you say it's their fault for staying out of the way of business.
The Bible has probably had more of an impact on the world than any other book in history. It is impossible to truly understand western history over the past two thousand years without understanding the Bible. Whether you believe in anything it says is supremely irrelevant.
You really are frightfully ignorant of American law and history, aren't you?
Then what? Toil at a postdoc position for $30k a year while fruitlessly looking for a paying teaching or research job?
"The Tea Party and the Republicans do *not* want do get rid of regulations concerning uncontaminated food and a clean environment. They do want to get rid of ***hats like yourself who think more government equals effective government."
You're a damned liar.
What's he going to do with a physics degree, though?
Baen is a publisher. They could sell the books for a penny if they wanted. Amazon is a reseller. They are not going to sell the books for less than they paid for them.
" Of course American maple syrup is nowhere near as good as Quebec maple syrup, but that's just my biased Montreal snob-side coming out. "
Wow, do you actually believe that?
Activists are our usually out to make money by suing,
That is just ridiculous and you are completely unable to substantiate that claim. The overwhelming majority of activists never sue anyone. When activists DO sue people, they usually ask for injunctive relief, which means even if they win they get zero money.
I was talking to a PhD candidate (coincidentally, a hydrogeologist working on groundwater issues) who was about to defend her dissertation about the job market for her field; I asked if she was willing to work for an oil company and the sheer revulsion that passed over this girl's face was actually a little surprising in its vehemence.
So the Environmental Protection Agency
Which is so unconcerned about fracking that they just released this month their plan to conduct an in-depth study of the effect of fracking on groundwater.
Ground Water Protection Council
Which is so unconcerned about fracking that they created a database to track chemicals used in hydrofracking at the individual well level.
Amazing that the most ignorant comments get modded up. Group-think at its finest.
"You should believe this because these groups believe it, and if you don't then you're just stuck in group-think!"
And someone who thinks the sole question concerning hydrofracking's effect on groundwater is what you're pumping into the ground really needs to brush up on their geochemistry.
See Osborn SG, et al. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(20):8172–8176 (2011); doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108.
/Geologist who works for a major oil company.
So you're obviously a non-biased source.
"Why are the interests of equatorial people more important than the interests of polar people? "
Because there are two orders of magnitude more of them.
What does the word choice of an editor that Muller probably never heard of calling him something? How does that cast doubts on what he says?
That is an extraordinary claim -- that CO2 is only a greenhouse gas in the absence of water vapor. Do you have any support for this remarkable assertion?
Not in colloquial English. Words have specific meanings, and "creationist" refers to something specific that your definition doesn't accurately capture.
"It doesn't matter if their stance is "I don't think the big bang was an accident" "
Frankly, that's a strawman. You're essentially saying all those who believe in evolution are atheists, which is demonstrably false. If you went to an evolutionary biology conference and said "I believe God created the Big Bang, and once life arose, evolution kicked in" most would have no problem with that and would not qualify you as a "creationist."
GP is wrong; evolution involves the species level. You're talking about spontaneous mutation, which is only one element of natural selection.
A problem with programmers in general is they tend to be very poor at self-evaluation. Just like most people think they're better-than-average drivers, most programmers think they're better-than-average programmers.
"well...you can form the s-corp, nobody will stop you, but the IRS will take all your money away after you have made any"
Yes, that pesky 100% tax rate.