I got stock options when the small, privately-owned company I was working for was bought by a then huge, multi-national telco.
They came with (company-based) performance strings and a time limit attached of course, but at the time were worth something in the region of £50k GBP.
By the time I could actually exercise them, it would have cost me more than £20k to do so.
Beware promises of extra money in the future, especially for extra work done in the present. (Luckily mine were a loyalty bonus and I lost nothing)
Well, copyright prevents you from sharing a chapter of a book just as it does the entire book, so I suspect the same principle would apply to partial archive files.
While you are indeed correct about the tabloid media and commercial news shows, this report is in the BMJ which caters to an entirely different readership. I find it incredibly unlikely that they are attempting to create panic amongst their readership to boost sales.
When his data came out incompatible with his preconceived notion, he did not take a deep breath, count to ten, and reconsider his original position. He fudged the data to match his "reality" and passed the point of no return.
And in so doing set in motion a chain of events that caused people to die. He deserves rather more than to be "slapped around", and should be facing a criminal trial.
Not only that but in universities the lab machines will probably still be in use by the research groups/post-grads, and even if not they may well not be powered down over the holidays anyway.
I'm pretty sure #3 is incorrect, as you can break your contract and pay off the remainder of it (at the normal monthly rate * months remaining) at any time.
Amazon and eBay have that property, because the recommendation system and the payment system are connected.
I can't vouch for eBay, but on Amazon you most certainly do not have to have bought the product from them (or at all) in order to be able to submit a review.
No, some parents are worse; some of us manage to maintain reason even in the face of reports of possible danger. For instance my daughter was due to be vaccinated in 2000, pretty-much at the height of the reports of possible links between the MMR vaccine and autism. We still had her vaccinated, and a great many other parents had their children vaccinated too.
That's not to say that parenthood doesn't change you to some degree, of course it does. However suggesting that we all become shitbrained morons where our kids are concerned simply isn't fair.
No, we don't want to worry, it just comes naturally. The difference is some of us understand the science a little better and worry a little less, and don't let that vague worry stop us from doing what we think is right for our child.
Conversely, those that do worry enough to say no to the vaccination are also doing what they believe is right for their child.
if they can find no real dangers, they'll inflate anything that looks remotely threatening regardless of true risk
That's true of some, but by no means all of us. It's true of people in general whether parents or not, whether talking about children or not - just look at the popular support a lot of anti-terror and anti-crime laws have, despite either being of little or no use or being far too easy to abuse.
Yes you do have the right to remain silent in the UK; another poster has replied with the exact text of the warning you are given when arrested so I shan't repeat it.
All that has changed is that the jury is allowed to think "Hang on, if that's true why didn't he tell the police when he was arrested or interviewed? Why wait until now?" which, let's face it, is what they would have been doing anyway.
You agreed to it at the same time and in the same way as you agreed to every other law on your society's statute books - when you didn't move to a different society.
Like it or not, your continued membership of that society is implicit approval.
your position assumes that you violate ideas of justice or equal rights simply by not giving someone half of what you have.
Actually I believe that his position is that rebuilding in a shape that is advantageous to you, or with conditions attached, is not as charitable as it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but 4/10 is not 5/10, and chances are if they're actually *asking* for 5/10, they will *need* 6/10.
I got stock options when the small, privately-owned company I was working for was bought by a then huge, multi-national telco.
They came with (company-based) performance strings and a time limit attached of course, but at the time were worth something in the region of £50k GBP.
By the time I could actually exercise them, it would have cost me more than £20k to do so.
Beware promises of extra money in the future, especially for extra work done in the present. (Luckily mine were a loyalty bonus and I lost nothing)
Well, copyright prevents you from sharing a chapter of a book just as it does the entire book, so I suspect the same principle would apply to partial archive files.
While you are indeed correct about the tabloid media and commercial news shows, this report is in the BMJ which caters to an entirely different readership. I find it incredibly unlikely that they are attempting to create panic amongst their readership to boost sales.
When his data came out incompatible with his preconceived notion, he did not take a deep breath, count to ten, and reconsider his original position. He fudged the data to match his "reality" and passed the point of no return.
And in so doing set in motion a chain of events that caused people to die. He deserves rather more than to be "slapped around", and should be facing a criminal trial.
Not only that but in universities the lab machines will probably still be in use by the research groups/post-grads, and even if not they may well not be powered down over the holidays anyway.
I'm pretty sure #3 is incorrect, as you can break your contract and pay off the remainder of it (at the normal monthly rate * months remaining) at any time.
OT, but why the [sic] after their?
Personally I'd say yes - to my mind, "willing but unable" is more deserving that "unwilling but able".
And the companies that own the ships that they protect will call them "prohibitively expensive".
Amazon and eBay have that property, because the recommendation system and the payment system are connected.
I can't vouch for eBay, but on Amazon you most certainly do not have to have bought the product from them (or at all) in order to be able to submit a review.
That's more or less what I was thinking. Quite apart from losing his career and any associated licence(s), this guy should be up on criminal charges.
No, some parents are worse; some of us manage to maintain reason even in the face of reports of possible danger. For instance my daughter was due to be vaccinated in 2000, pretty-much at the height of the reports of possible links between the MMR vaccine and autism. We still had her vaccinated, and a great many other parents had their children vaccinated too.
That's not to say that parenthood doesn't change you to some degree, of course it does. However suggesting that we all become shitbrained morons where our kids are concerned simply isn't fair.
No, we don't want to worry, it just comes naturally. The difference is some of us understand the science a little better and worry a little less, and don't let that vague worry stop us from doing what we think is right for our child.
Conversely, those that do worry enough to say no to the vaccination are also doing what they believe is right for their child.
if they can find no real dangers, they'll inflate anything that looks remotely threatening regardless of true risk
That's true of some, but by no means all of us. It's true of people in general whether parents or not, whether talking about children or not - just look at the popular support a lot of anti-terror and anti-crime laws have, despite either being of little or no use or being far too easy to abuse.
Yes you do have the right to remain silent in the UK; another poster has replied with the exact text of the warning you are given when arrested so I shan't repeat it.
All that has changed is that the jury is allowed to think "Hang on, if that's true why didn't he tell the police when he was arrested or interviewed? Why wait until now?" which, let's face it, is what they would have been doing anyway.
Just because it's an enjoyable movie doesn't mean that its premise isn't absurd; the two are not mutually exclusive.
Surely then you are providing (access to and use of) the means of production?
Counterfeit, n: made to look like the original of something, usually for dishonest or illegal purposes.
Sounds like the right word to me.
Would you say the same thing about staining worthless pieces of paper with dye in particular patterns?
You agreed to it at the same time and in the same way as you agreed to every other law on your society's statute books - when you didn't move to a different society.
Like it or not, your continued membership of that society is implicit approval.
Information wants to be free.
Rent wants to be paid.
(Incidentally I'm British and an atheist, not that that should matter)
despite my respect for the milatary, and in some capacities law enforcement, I absolutely believe that neither group is above the law
Respect has nothing to do with it. No one should be above the law.
it's part of the metric system, it's not an SI unit
None of those words are SI units; they are SI prefixes.
I knew what you meant though (obviously).
your position assumes that you violate ideas of justice or equal rights simply by not giving someone half of what you have.
Actually I believe that his position is that rebuilding in a shape that is advantageous to you, or with conditions attached, is not as charitable as it seems.
Besides which, it wasn't exactly charity.
You are an idiot. 99% of rapists are men.
But 99% of men are not rapists.
Agreed. Back in the mid-90s Altavista was the search engine, and was definitely in prime position to occupy that slot today.
Google beat them, but it would (or at least should) have been easy for them to maintain their dominance given their lead and position at the time.