Again, just make up a position and assign it to me, seems like a pattern that a 'ditto-head' would follow, as Rush Limbaugh does that a lot and his devotees seem enthralled with strawmen arguments. I never claimed that my wish is to make 'investing easy', just that low margin rates are unavailable for the 'little guy' to start with. In fact, the idea of raising the margin rates is a tactic to make it 'harder'.
Perhaps you think that you have some sort of right to invest in any way that you see fit, but two hundred years of trial and error in the investing world have shown a number of things, including the basic needs of regulation of the market from excessive influence. Low margin rates increase influence exponentially.
Really? I said that? The only way to get the kind of credit to have the lowest margin rates is to be very, very rich in the first place, the reduced margins just make speculation much more lucrative to those people. Sure the angry men of right wing talk radio tell you that low margin requirement are 'good for the little guy', but that simply isn't true, unless you think that the 'little guy' can be already worth a million or more.
There are proven ways to reduce the effects of speculation. I know for a fact that increasing margin requirements (the amount of cash you need to put down to hold a contract) is one of them. The trick is getting such tactics passed by a GOP filibuster or (a partially Democratic one when the GOP can't quite hold the line, as Wall Street money is just that good).
How do we know that California doesn't cause cancer? How can we be sure?
Perhaps you can get funding to conduct a study where you simply travel around CA with some lab mice while several other people do the same thing in other states?
What I don't really understand is how dismissive the 'group think' is about this. Did everyone who takes scientific evidence seriously go out drinking already? Sure there are a lot of things that have been shown to cause cancer, while some might call laughter 'the best medicine' it's certainly not a vaccination.
Essentially, I'm trying to cover all my bases so any excuse my replacement has to call me is seen as nothing but laziness or incompetence.
Do you hate the guy? Sure people can be time wasters, but you wouldn't be blowing off a user, but an admin who's hands you might need at some time in the future.
I now find myself typing up all my open-ended projects, removing certain scripts and stopping others.
What's with all the last minute changes? Clearly it's not a 'best practice' to change anything just before you hand it over, as some issues can take days, weeks, or months to become noticed, if they can be traced back you your last minute 'unwarranted' changes, you'll be at the other end of those 'incompetence charges'.
We don't even have a left-wing party anymore. We've got the Democrat centrists (with a small handful of Republicans joining them) and the far right.
I would argue that there are no Republican centrists, but if you know any don't point them out as they'll lose in the primaries if you do. Joining them are a number of conservative democrats (blue dogs if you will), the liberals in blue states, or 90% gerrymandered districts in red ones. Considering that the GOP has won more seats than they lost in 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010 all running on a far, far right agenda, who's do you think is really at fault? When the GOP gobbles up the big money and then turn it into election day victories, I'd argue that Democrats who don't end up as the political Darwin examples. If you want more liberal candidates liberal voters need to take a queue from Rush's playbook and 'hold their nose and vote' for the person who's even nominally representing the more progressive party.
One is a lot less likely to go to jail for using or being caught with caffeine. However, until more people are used to seeing such a thing, I'd say away from using it in front of cops. BTW, it's still resisting arrest if you don't immediately comply to being hauled into jail and/or hospital, even if it's legal, also be careful (if you can) about where and when you seizures from over use, as it's possible for them to call it resisting.
When considering the Republican victories in 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, do you think that the Dems would move to the left or to the right? The one thing that I'll give conservatives credit for is that they 'hold their nose and vote' whereas hard core liberals tend to not at all. The so called 'liberal media' doesn't help at all as they respond to such name-calling by being sure to be 'as tough' on democratic candidates, whereas the reactionary media fawns overs it's GOP candidates in the weeks ahead of any election. As a
responsible journalist Chris Mathews never tells anyone to 'hold your nose and vote', but Rush Limbaugh will tell you to vote in the other guy's primary just to screw with them. I've also heard that same MSNBC commentator repeat a quote that says 'the Democrats fall in love, the Republicans fall in line', in a fatalistic manner.
When the health care debate was raging on, I would argue that MSNBC whined nearly as much about the end product as FNC. Even now I don't watch MSNBC like I did because I'm sick and tired of the coal commercials that repeat ad nauseum (seriously, it's the same freaking commercial at least once every single break). Would FNC even allow a regular commercial that so totally bends it audience the wrong way? One other thing that FNC does better is that while they have a very strong political tone, they also cover pop cultural issue fairly regularly. Where all of the 'liberal media' ones simply cover the exact same hard news politics as their lead in show, almost in the same order of presentation. Frankly, it's boring. For all her hoopla and obvious enjoyment taken in presenting her 'moment of geek', I've never seen Rachael Maddow present that segment more than once a week, if at all, and Keith Olbermann 'stories that my producer is forcing me to report', when he did it, was always about Tom Cruise
Am I arguing that they should 'drop pretense' and cheer lead for the DNC? Perhaps a little, but it'd likely be best if they drummed up support more for the primaries and I'm certain that the coal commercials (et al) are an effective effort at reducing viewership. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg, the reality is simple if you want a more liberal government you need to vote for the person who's party organization is more liberal, even if the candidate isn't. I would argue that its worked rather well for the Republicans, wouldn't you?
No, It's all they have left after twenty some odd years of trying to 'out do' one another on being the 'most conservative' as determined by a combination of scores given by various corporate funded 'think tanks' and random radio hosts. Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.
do your number include stopping at Alpha Centauri, or jjust waving as you fly by at high speed?
Why wave, when you can just deceleration into it? Only four some odd years later we could tell what it was made of by just using a telescope. After all, it'll be kind of a useless trip unless you had some way of returning data.
I've seen it in my own writings on this forum, as of late. Currently I'm actually trying to 'stay away from' using such words as 'such' (damn!). I also try to reconsider transitions like 'also' and 'however', but obviously it doesn't always work out well. In particular, such notable words are especially awkward when used twice in a single paragraph, as well as a 'double qualifier'. Single quotes can also be to 'notable', as I tend to over use them as well and I've been told of my 'addiction' to commas, but I think that I'm ok with those.
Two words 'moon quakes', as little as we really know about the moon, one thing is for certain there is seismic activity there. Would you really trust your moon base to be underground when there is so very little knowledge about frequency or scale of them? The first based need to be above ground, perhaps under piles of excavation material, but certainly not under the surface of the moon. From NASA
Science News
The first three were generally mild and harmless. Shallow moonquakes on the other hand were doozies. Between 1972 and 1977, the Apollo seismic network saw twenty-eight of them; a few "registered up to 5.5 on the Richter scale," says Neal. A magnitude 5 quake on Earth is energetic enough to move heavy furniture and crack plaster.
Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.
They could make an argument using the health care bill (since just about everything can be considered as pertaining to someone's "health") so that if an emergency exists they know where the individual is.
Since you brought up that much maligned health care bill in an apparent effort to slander it more, did you know (and I doubt if you did, or if you did, that you'd actually want it publicly known) that in 2014 all health plans in America will no longer be allowed to deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Also, the working poor (up to 133% of the poverty line; or roughly $12/hour for a full time worker who supports a family of four) will receive the same excellent Medicare that our elderly do. Similar worker who make up to 400% of that line (about $88,000) will have part of their coverage rebated by the feds based on a sliding scale to 97%.
Ergo, you are accusing Dan Savage of cyber bullying Rick Santorum. Ergo, you are siding with Rick Santorum. Ergo, dave420 has correctly called you out for what you are.
Yes I am accusing Dan Savage of cyber bullying Rick Santorum, while I also see it as protected speech. What do you call such actions? Well, beside something along the lines of 'turnabout' or 'fair play' and simply 'satire', as none of them are specific enough. Wikipedia calls it a "Neologism" but that simply describes a new recent word rather than how it came into being used. "To Savage..." seems too vague for me and would be more of a push-back on it's creator. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling to prosecute Dan Savage via the latest cyber bulling laws, but there has to be a good name for an activity which is 'An effort to punish someone by using the internet to make derogatory meme of something personal to them'. Whatever you call it (revenge?), the result of this particular turn of events will likely this new meaning for 'frothy ass mixture' will stay in our language, whereas Senator Santorum himself will fairly quickly fade from view (He's major asshat IMHO, with plenty to criticize without ever resorting to name-calling)
In fact, I'm surprised that he appeared on the national stage at all. The only thing that he was really know for nationally was about how Dan Savage singled him out for years of mocking for some bigoted speech on the Senate floor (like it was the first time a Senator said something stupid in that forum). While few people would make the association, but I would guess that without the additional attention of that particular neologism, the former Senator who failed miserably in his attempt at a third term might never have been even notice at the national level.
Do you realize that all the best slurs are usually started or propagated originally from within those same communities? I guarantee that within a couple of years, if not already, the people most using Santorum in language will be full on bigots. (e.g. "I see that some S@nt0rum leaked out on your pants) It might be news to you, but I've found that reactionary loonies don't care about irony, in fact they seem to relish in it. Also, it's likely that children who's last name is Santorum (or even rhymes with it) will see endless teasing for that 'offense', weather it be the descendant of a singular bigot who offended Dan Savage so deeply or not, it's still a lousy thing.
That being said I would support Dan Savage over Rick Santorum on virtually any other subject and if he's able to turn some of his notably into his 'it gets better campaign', I would argue that at least some good has come out of it.
I'm not siding with Santorum and if you think that you are 'fighting back' by trying to make his family name an insult, you've already lost the battle.
Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
While I'm not a very politically active (besides spouting out some stuff online most weeks), I have been both canvasing and on the phone bank for the Democratic party. So it's likely that I've done much more to affect political change than you. Also, I don't claim to be perfect and recently lost my temper when talking to a birther, but at least I know for a fact that such actions are the worst way to change minds
Maybe you should check my posting history before making assumptions? One should know that you make a better point to moderates and even the rare 'reasonable conservative', if you don't start off sounding like a child.
More Republican poutraging, this time over a 'online poll' that they managed to game in such a way to point a finger at Chris Dodd. Perhaps we could suggest another target? Mitt Romney has money in tax havens and Swiss bank accounts, lets call to investigate him. That wouldn't be politically motivated at all
Chris Dodd is hardly the only politician who has done such a thing, and there is currently no law against it unless there is an actual promised payment (even Delay/Gingrich have been smart enough to avoid that). Some might argue that there should be laws against such 'retirement plans' for politicians, but it would be hard to enforce, and likely unconstitutional. There are however laws against money laundering and using foreign bank accounts for tax evasion, perhaps Mitt has been completely honest, perhaps not. As 'we' all know, online polls are easy to game, it wouldn't be hard to ask them to investigate using a couple of thousand email addresses.
Whenever the GOP is in power they seem to spend more time grandstanding for political advantage than doing the work of the people (for example, 'where's that jobs bill?').
While I'll admit that once in a while I sometimes do enjoy watching football, the game is exactly a competition played by unionized workers between two corporations. What's really silly is that when teachers organize to help their members try to attain the middle class the GOP cries like they are trying to skin alive every tax payer, while the sport unions creates millionaires for throwing a ball around. That really does show 'the children' what sort of skills are valuable in our society.
Considering that the last negative GDP quarter from the panic of 2008 was the 2nd one of 2009 (just after the stimulus started). The chance of a double dip recession as it used to be label (one or two growth quarters after a recession, followed by a negative one or two), is exactly zero. Sure the recovery has been shallow, but some have succeed, it's America. Do you expect failure? Why people have been pushing the idea that we are still in recession is not nearly as astounding as why they aren't being called out as either morons or political hacks for it.
Ron Paul is all about the straw man. He calls his 'The fed', sure it might sound a lot like the the banking arm of our federal government, but to hear him talk it's the root of all evil, well that and the EPA and you can probably find him complaining about fluoride in his old newsletter.
To me any political speech that has no basis in reality is just wrong to it's core and draws from the same well as the typical school yard bully. Personally, I'd rather not have my political spectrum sullied with such nonsense and have criticized such foolery often (both right and left, if you will). While there is no way I can stop people from acting like children, I feel that politics have too many lies already and such foolery simply makes it harder to discuss the things that really need attention.
That is, unless your architects belong behind a McDonald's counter in the first place.
There I fixed that for you...
You might as well blame the guy cooking the burger for the lack of nutrition. Usually it's improper use of a CDN that causes these issues, such decisions are typically not made by developers, unless it's a one man shop.
As it's already approved for human use, off label is certainly a possibility, however another article I read said the mice received a 'mega-dose', so the effective amount might be too much for people. One good thing is that it's already has a decade of use and is available as a generic, but I suspect that the 'spot market' will get really hot quickly.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
The Sixteenth Amendment is very, very clear on income taxes.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
It depends on the definition of 'income'. Shooting down a proposal is much different than implementing something and finding it rejected by the courts on constitutional grounds.
First off you're right,secondly, I don't think that an underwriter would never agree to such a term, nor would the company want a clause that was designed to encourage them to find a lower stock price. While I'm no expert on the subject, I don't believe that an IPO is ever even most of the shares, it's more a 'taste' for the market. On some levels it's like the free sample at the supermarket. Subsequent sales are brought in at the market price once that has been established. Besides, it also sets up the ability for current owners to 'cash out', or establish credit on their ownership, and clearly they're hoping for the best price always. Sure the company has an interest in making the strike price reasonable close to reality, but one shouldn't underestimate the value of a big pop would have on publicity (even facebook still likes to be in the news).
Possibly the greatest military blunder off all time was coalition provisional authority order number 2 which dismissed the Iraqi army. This action sent hundreds of thousands young unemployed trained soldiers into the hands of the various mullahs. Arguably, it was the tinder that fuel the Iraqi civil war. L. Paul Bremer, the man who committed the blunder was rewarded with the Presidential medal of Freedom.
For me, rooting for an NFL team is like rooting for one corporation to beat another.
While I'll admit that once in a while I sometimes do enjoy watching football, the game is exactly a competition played by unionized workers between two corporations. What's really silly is that when teachers organize to help their members try to attain the middle class the GOP cries like they are trying to skin alive every tax payer, while the sport unions creates millionaires for throwing a ball around. That really does show 'the children' what sort of skills are valuable in our society.
Slashdot Mirror
don't have a Facebook account.
But then you're a anti-social and therefore likely to go on a shooting rampage.
Seems to me that these days having a facebook page is pre-requisite for a shooting rampage.
Again, just make up a position and assign it to me, seems like a pattern that a 'ditto-head' would follow, as Rush Limbaugh does that a lot and his devotees seem enthralled with strawmen arguments. I never claimed that my wish is to make 'investing easy', just that low margin rates are unavailable for the 'little guy' to start with. In fact, the idea of raising the margin rates is a tactic to make it 'harder'.
Perhaps you think that you have some sort of right to invest in any way that you see fit, but two hundred years of trial and error in the investing world have shown a number of things, including the basic needs of regulation of the market from excessive influence. Low margin rates increase influence exponentially.
Here is what the rule you propose would say:
Really? I said that? The only way to get the kind of credit to have the lowest margin rates is to be very, very rich in the first place, the reduced margins just make speculation much more lucrative to those people. Sure the angry men of right wing talk radio tell you that low margin requirement are 'good for the little guy', but that simply isn't true, unless you think that the 'little guy' can be already worth a million or more.
There are proven ways to reduce the effects of speculation. I know for a fact that increasing margin requirements (the amount of cash you need to put down to hold a contract) is one of them. The trick is getting such tactics passed by a GOP filibuster or (a partially Democratic one when the GOP can't quite hold the line, as Wall Street money is just that good).
How do we know that California doesn't cause cancer? How can we be sure?
Perhaps you can get funding to conduct a study where you simply travel around CA with some lab mice while several other people do the same thing in other states?
What I don't really understand is how dismissive the 'group think' is about this. Did everyone who takes scientific evidence seriously go out drinking already? Sure there are a lot of things that have been shown to cause cancer, while some might call laughter 'the best medicine' it's certainly not a vaccination.
Can somebody explain to me what they mean by "not smart enough"?
'They' don't read about a subject before making a comment, and instead expect some random individual of dubious agenda to do it for them.
Essentially, I'm trying to cover all my bases so any excuse my replacement has to call me is seen as nothing but laziness or incompetence.
Do you hate the guy? Sure people can be time wasters, but you wouldn't be blowing off a user, but an admin who's hands you might need at some time in the future.
I now find myself typing up all my open-ended projects, removing certain scripts and stopping others.
What's with all the last minute changes? Clearly it's not a 'best practice' to change anything just before you hand it over, as some issues can take days, weeks, or months to become noticed, if they can be traced back you your last minute 'unwarranted' changes, you'll be at the other end of those 'incompetence charges'.
We don't even have a left-wing party anymore. We've got the Democrat centrists (with a small handful of Republicans joining them) and the far right.
I would argue that there are no Republican centrists, but if you know any don't point them out as they'll lose in the primaries if you do. Joining them are a number of conservative democrats (blue dogs if you will), the liberals in blue states, or 90% gerrymandered districts in red ones. Considering that the GOP has won more seats than they lost in 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010 all running on a far, far right agenda, who's do you think is really at fault? When the GOP gobbles up the big money and then turn it into election day victories, I'd argue that Democrats who don't end up as the political Darwin examples. If you want more liberal candidates liberal voters need to take a queue from Rush's playbook and 'hold their nose and vote' for the person who's even nominally representing the more progressive party.
So why are we dicking around with caffeine?
One is a lot less likely to go to jail for using or being caught with caffeine. However, until more people are used to seeing such a thing, I'd say away from using it in front of cops. BTW, it's still resisting arrest if you don't immediately comply to being hauled into jail and/or hospital, even if it's legal, also be careful (if you can) about where and when you seizures from over use, as it's possible for them to call it resisting.
When considering the Republican victories in 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, do you think that the Dems would move to the left or to the right? The one thing that I'll give conservatives credit for is that they 'hold their nose and vote' whereas hard core liberals tend to not at all. The so called 'liberal media' doesn't help at all as they respond to such name-calling by being sure to be 'as tough' on democratic candidates, whereas the reactionary media fawns overs it's GOP candidates in the weeks ahead of any election. As a responsible journalist Chris Mathews never tells anyone to 'hold your nose and vote', but Rush Limbaugh will tell you to vote in the other guy's primary just to screw with them. I've also heard that same MSNBC commentator repeat a quote that says 'the Democrats fall in love, the Republicans fall in line', in a fatalistic manner.
When the health care debate was raging on, I would argue that MSNBC whined nearly as much about the end product as FNC. Even now I don't watch MSNBC like I did because I'm sick and tired of the coal commercials that repeat ad nauseum (seriously, it's the same freaking commercial at least once every single break). Would FNC even allow a regular commercial that so totally bends it audience the wrong way? One other thing that FNC does better is that while they have a very strong political tone, they also cover pop cultural issue fairly regularly. Where all of the 'liberal media' ones simply cover the exact same hard news politics as their lead in show, almost in the same order of presentation. Frankly, it's boring. For all her hoopla and obvious enjoyment taken in presenting her 'moment of geek', I've never seen Rachael Maddow present that segment more than once a week, if at all, and Keith Olbermann 'stories that my producer is forcing me to report', when he did it, was always about Tom Cruise
Am I arguing that they should 'drop pretense' and cheer lead for the DNC? Perhaps a little, but it'd likely be best if they drummed up support more for the primaries and I'm certain that the coal commercials (et al) are an effective effort at reducing viewership. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg, the reality is simple if you want a more liberal government you need to vote for the person who's party organization is more liberal, even if the candidate isn't. I would argue that its worked rather well for the Republicans, wouldn't you?
Are they sitting this one out or something?
No, It's all they have left after twenty some odd years of trying to 'out do' one another on being the 'most conservative' as determined by a combination of scores given by various corporate funded 'think tanks' and random radio hosts. Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.
do your number include stopping at Alpha Centauri, or jjust waving as you fly by at high speed?
Why wave, when you can just deceleration into it? Only four some odd years later we could tell what it was made of by just using a telescope. After all, it'll be kind of a useless trip unless you had some way of returning data.
I've seen it in my own writings on this forum, as of late. Currently I'm actually trying to 'stay away from' using such words as 'such' (damn!). I also try to reconsider transitions like 'also' and 'however', but obviously it doesn't always work out well. In particular, such notable words are especially awkward when used twice in a single paragraph, as well as a 'double qualifier'. Single quotes can also be to 'notable', as I tend to over use them as well and I've been told of my 'addiction' to commas, but I think that I'm ok with those.
The first three were generally mild and harmless. Shallow moonquakes on the other hand were doozies. Between 1972 and 1977, the Apollo seismic network saw twenty-eight of them; a few "registered up to 5.5 on the Richter scale," says Neal. A magnitude 5 quake on Earth is energetic enough to move heavy furniture and crack plaster.
Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.
They could make an argument using the health care bill (since just about everything can be considered as pertaining to someone's "health") so that if an emergency exists they know where the individual is.
Since you brought up that much maligned health care bill in an apparent effort to slander it more, did you know (and I doubt if you did, or if you did, that you'd actually want it publicly known) that in 2014 all health plans in America will no longer be allowed to deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Also, the working poor (up to 133% of the poverty line; or roughly $12/hour for a full time worker who supports a family of four) will receive the same excellent Medicare that our elderly do. Similar worker who make up to 400% of that line (about $88,000) will have part of their coverage rebated by the feds based on a sliding scale to 97%.
Ergo, you are accusing Dan Savage of cyber bullying Rick Santorum. Ergo, you are siding with Rick Santorum. Ergo, dave420 has correctly called you out for what you are.
Yes I am accusing Dan Savage of cyber bullying Rick Santorum, while I also see it as protected speech. What do you call such actions? Well, beside something along the lines of 'turnabout' or 'fair play' and simply 'satire', as none of them are specific enough. Wikipedia calls it a "Neologism" but that simply describes a new recent word rather than how it came into being used. "To Savage..." seems too vague for me and would be more of a push-back on it's creator. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling to prosecute Dan Savage via the latest cyber bulling laws, but there has to be a good name for an activity which is 'An effort to punish someone by using the internet to make derogatory meme of something personal to them'. Whatever you call it (revenge?), the result of this particular turn of events will likely this new meaning for 'frothy ass mixture' will stay in our language, whereas Senator Santorum himself will fairly quickly fade from view (He's major asshat IMHO, with plenty to criticize without ever resorting to name-calling)
In fact, I'm surprised that he appeared on the national stage at all. The only thing that he was really know for nationally was about how Dan Savage singled him out for years of mocking for some bigoted speech on the Senate floor (like it was the first time a Senator said something stupid in that forum). While few people would make the association, but I would guess that without the additional attention of that particular neologism, the former Senator who failed miserably in his attempt at a third term might never have been even notice at the national level.
Do you realize that all the best slurs are usually started or propagated originally from within those same communities? I guarantee that within a couple of years, if not already, the people most using Santorum in language will be full on bigots. (e.g. "I see that some S@nt0rum leaked out on your pants) It might be news to you, but I've found that reactionary loonies don't care about irony, in fact they seem to relish in it. Also, it's likely that children who's last name is Santorum (or even rhymes with it) will see endless teasing for that 'offense', weather it be the descendant of a singular bigot who offended Dan Savage so deeply or not, it's still a lousy thing.
That being said I would support Dan Savage over Rick Santorum on virtually any other subject and if he's able to turn some of his notably into his 'it gets better campaign', I would argue that at least some good has come out of it.
Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
While I'm not a very politically active (besides spouting out some stuff online most weeks), I have been both canvasing and on the phone bank for the Democratic party. So it's likely that I've done much more to affect political change than you. Also, I don't claim to be perfect and recently lost my temper when talking to a birther, but at least I know for a fact that such actions are the worst way to change minds
Maybe you should check my posting history before making assumptions? One should know that you make a better point to moderates and even the rare 'reasonable conservative', if you don't start off sounding like a child.
More Republican Poutrage (Score -1, Flamebait)
More Republican poutraging, this time over a 'online poll' that they managed to game in such a way to point a finger at Chris Dodd. Perhaps we could suggest another target? Mitt Romney has money in tax havens and Swiss bank accounts, lets call to investigate him. That wouldn't be politically motivated at all
Re:More Republican Poutrage (Score 5, Insightful)
Chris Dodd is hardly the only politician who has done such a thing, and there is currently no law against it unless there is an actual promised payment (even Delay/Gingrich have been smart enough to avoid that). Some might argue that there should be laws against such 'retirement plans' for politicians, but it would be hard to enforce, and likely unconstitutional. There are however laws against money laundering and using foreign bank accounts for tax evasion, perhaps Mitt has been completely honest, perhaps not. As 'we' all know, online polls are easy to game, it wouldn't be hard to ask them to investigate using a couple of thousand email addresses.
Whenever the GOP is in power they seem to spend more time grandstanding for political advantage than doing the work of the people (for example, 'where's that jobs bill?').
Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are (Score:2)
While I'll admit that once in a while I sometimes do enjoy watching football, the game is exactly a competition played by unionized workers between two corporations. What's really silly is that when teachers organize to help their members try to attain the middle class the GOP cries like they are trying to skin alive every tax payer, while the sport unions creates millionaires for throwing a ball around. That really does show 'the children' what sort of skills are valuable in our society.
Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (Score 1)
Considering that the last negative GDP quarter from the panic of 2008 was the 2nd one of 2009 (just after the stimulus started). The chance of a double dip recession as it used to be label (one or two growth quarters after a recession, followed by a negative one or two), is exactly zero. Sure the recovery has been shallow, but some have succeed, it's America. Do you expect failure? Why people have been pushing the idea that we are still in recession is not nearly as astounding as why they aren't being called out as either morons or political hacks for it.
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:3, Insightful)
Ron Paul is all about the straw man. He calls his 'The fed', sure it might sound a lot like the the banking arm of our federal government, but to hear him talk it's the root of all evil, well that and the EPA and you can probably find him complaining about fluoride in his old newsletter.
To me any political speech that has no basis in reality is just wrong to it's core and draws from the same well as the typical school yard bully. Personally, I'd rather not have my political spectrum sullied with such nonsense and have criticized such foolery often (both right and left, if you will). While there is no way I can stop people from acting like children, I feel that politics have too many lies already and such foolery simply makes it harder to discuss the things that really need attention.
That is, unless your architects belong behind a McDonald's counter in the first place.
There I fixed that for you...
You might as well blame the guy cooking the burger for the lack of nutrition. Usually it's improper use of a CDN that causes these issues, such decisions are typically not made by developers, unless it's a one man shop.
As it's already approved for human use, off label is certainly a possibility, however another article I read said the mice received a 'mega-dose', so the effective amount might be too much for people. One good thing is that it's already has a decade of use and is available as a generic, but I suspect that the 'spot market' will get really hot quickly.
It depends on the definition of 'income'. Shooting down a proposal is much different than implementing something and finding it rejected by the courts on constitutional grounds.
Wikipedia's first sentence :
an entry from Webster:
Dictionary.com
First off you're right,secondly, I don't think that an underwriter would never agree to such a term, nor would the company want a clause that was designed to encourage them to find a lower stock price. While I'm no expert on the subject, I don't believe that an IPO is ever even most of the shares, it's more a 'taste' for the market. On some levels it's like the free sample at the supermarket. Subsequent sales are brought in at the market price once that has been established. Besides, it also sets up the ability for current owners to 'cash out', or establish credit on their ownership, and clearly they're hoping for the best price always. Sure the company has an interest in making the strike price reasonable close to reality, but one shouldn't underestimate the value of a big pop would have on publicity (even facebook still likes to be in the news).
Possibly the greatest military blunder off all time was coalition provisional authority order number 2 which dismissed the Iraqi army. This action sent hundreds of thousands young unemployed trained soldiers into the hands of the various mullahs. Arguably, it was the tinder that fuel the Iraqi civil war. L. Paul Bremer, the man who committed the blunder was rewarded with the Presidential medal of Freedom.
For me, rooting for an NFL team is like rooting for one corporation to beat another.
While I'll admit that once in a while I sometimes do enjoy watching football, the game is exactly a competition played by unionized workers between two corporations. What's really silly is that when teachers organize to help their members try to attain the middle class the GOP cries like they are trying to skin alive every tax payer, while the sport unions creates millionaires for throwing a ball around. That really does show 'the children' what sort of skills are valuable in our society.