Somehoe, I don't see Osama bin Laden sitting at the $2/$4 table at PartyPoker.com thinking "If I make my flush, I can buy another AK-47".
Maybe not, but you know what you could see? Osama sitting at one seat, and six members of a sleeper cell sitting at the others, filling up the table. Osama starts with a huge bankroll, and keeps going all in while his friends take the winnings. One or two hands like that, with IM on the side so everyone knows each other's hole cards, and you've now transferred huge amounts of money with complete anonymity.
Now, is that sufficient reason to prevent adults from enjoying a pastime? I don't think so, but the law & order crowd doesn't see it that way. So, they pass laws to keep you from living your life the way you want to. All in the name of protecting "freedom".
How about everyone who really has a problem with this law, just move to Nevada. It's warmer, doesn't rain all the time, and you can gamble to your heart's consent. And I understand Reno has a kick-ass sheriff's department!
Hence those who had their Vonage stock converted in ordinary public shares already sold at $17, if they got ahold of these at lower price (or free as stock options) than they probably already have the Ferrari dealer on their friends list.
That's assuming said insiders are not under a black out. Usually, there's a black out period of six months following the IPO, during which no insiders may sell their shares (some provisions allow them buy additional ones, which may then be sold, but they can't sell any options or shares they originally owned).
Now, the VCs who backed the company are under no such restrictions, and in fact they make pretty much all of their money at the IPO. In fact, it usually doesn't matter whether the stock rises or falls at the IPO, the VCs make their money either by underwriting the IPO itself, or by selling their shares to institutional investors just before the shares hit the Over-The-Counter (OTC) market (NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, etc).
Well, you still could rather easily with google proper rather than google news. But I do see your point - it's hard to find odd sites when you don't know what to look for.
Really? Try doing a search for "Tucker Max" on Google. The guy's domain, tuckermax.com, doesn't even come up in the results. Google deletes things from it's system all the time, which means for large chunks of the public those things just don't exist anymore. That's frightening.
The new media journal is pushing the Mohamed is a paedophile meme:
Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old girl. How is that a "meme"?
Anyway, good on you google for not linking to hate as 'news' - the reaction of the moslem haters is as predictable as allways, crying about censorship, but frankly, everyone just thinks you're a bunch of whiners.
It might not be news, but it is opinion, even if you disagree with it. Now that Google has seen fit to decide for us which opinions we should read and which we should not, I'm sure we'll all sleep much more soundly at night.
Ah, but this is the SAME sort of thinking behind the idea that "freedom OF religion" is not the same as "freedom FROM religion"
You're only partially correct. We have freedom "from" religion in the sense that no one can force us to participate in a given religion (except for Tom Cruise, he can force you into Scientology). But you do not have freedom "from" religion in the sense that you don't have to hear other people talking about their religion. Otherwise, you'd be stepping on their freedom of speech.
Well, I've never heard of a government being overthrown via a written document.
Magna Carta.
And why did King John sign the Magna Carta, again? Oh that's right, because if he didn't, all the nobles of England were threatening a civil war. So what was your point again?
Boehner: Budget Victory Demonstrates Republicans' Commitment to Fiscal Discipline WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement after House passage of the FY 2007 Budget Resolution:
Hastert is the Speaker of the House, not the Majority leader. If the summary can't get this basic fact right (or maybe it was the original article?), why believe any of the rest of it?
And there has a to be at least A FEW government employees that have a conscience.
And this is the fatal flaw for all conspiracy theories. As Ben Franklin said, three can keep a secret if two are dead. And given just how many leaks there have been from this administration, it's completely absurd to believe the government had anything to do with 9/11 and someone hasn't leaked the documents proving that to the media.
You keep using the word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'll bet if you looked around, you'd find accounting and POS packages that fit your business that run on Linux (or some other OS). They might be better (for some value of "better") than what you're using now, or they might be worse (ditto). But they almost certainly exist.
I wouldn't go so far as to ask for sex, but start asking for personal advice. Every time you talk to the person, start lamenting about what a hell-hole your life has become. Start asking for advice on relationships, housecleaning, child-rearing, etc.
And make sure at least one of those questions revolves around "What do think these bumps on my dick mean?" Completely cross the line and ask outrageous and disgusting questions. They'll get the hint. Or they won't, but it'll be funny.
In chapter 2, God creates man, decides it is not good for him to be alone, and so creates all of the animals.
Actually, if you read Genesis 2:19*, it implies the animals were already created and God just herded them past Adam to find a "suitable helper". So you can read that either way, depending on your own preconceived notions.
*No, I don't have the Bible memorized, I looked this up on BibleGateway.com.
I doubt a jury will convict him, though, this being a technical argument mainly and a computer crime, any jury they seat is bound to wind up confused and the best the prosecution can hope is that someone on the jury will have enough savvy to explain it to the others.
First off, no one on the jury is going to explain anything to anyone else. They're not experts and can't testify about the case. They can only examine what's been presented. (I'm not a lawyer, but I do watch L&O every Sunday, Tuesday, and Wednesay.)
Really what it'll come down is, which expert witness(es) is/are more believable, the prosecution's or the defense's? And as soon as the defense's witness agrees with the prosecutor when asked "Could he have pointed out the security flaw without actually stealing the data of the students?" (because, really, he could have), McCarty will be done.
I suspect it may take lawsuits to get them to change their ways.
Why not? Google's makes billions of dollars a year, and apparently mistreats small businesses/individuals by taking away small amounts of money from them. It might only be $100 per person, but if they do it a million times a year, that's pretty strong incentive for a lawyer to launch a class action suit. All it takes is one person who's been so mistreated to contact a good (as in ability, not in moral compass) class action attorney and start the process. You won't get the full $100 back, maybe you'll get $20, but it would be incentive to Google to fix their shit.
Oh wow, I didn't see that. That's pretty scary! You'd think they'd want something that wasn't printed together in the same place.
Guess you're right, maybe this did happen! If so, that Dutch traveler should sue the bejesus out of BA for not following common sense security standards on their site.
Slashdot Mirror
If that was the case, congress would get even less done than they do now.
Sounds good to me!
Somehoe, I don't see Osama bin Laden sitting at the $2/$4 table at PartyPoker.com thinking "If I make my flush, I can buy another AK-47".
Maybe not, but you know what you could see? Osama sitting at one seat, and six members of a sleeper cell sitting at the others, filling up the table. Osama starts with a huge bankroll, and keeps going all in while his friends take the winnings. One or two hands like that, with IM on the side so everyone knows each other's hole cards, and you've now transferred huge amounts of money with complete anonymity.
Now, is that sufficient reason to prevent adults from enjoying a pastime? I don't think so, but the law & order crowd doesn't see it that way. So, they pass laws to keep you from living your life the way you want to. All in the name of protecting "freedom".
How about everyone who really has a problem with this law, just move to Nevada. It's warmer, doesn't rain all the time, and you can gamble to your heart's consent. And I understand Reno has a kick-ass sheriff's department!
Hence those who had their Vonage stock converted in ordinary public shares already sold at $17, if they got ahold of these at lower price (or free as stock options) than they probably already have the Ferrari dealer on their friends list.
That's assuming said insiders are not under a black out. Usually, there's a black out period of six months following the IPO, during which no insiders may sell their shares (some provisions allow them buy additional ones, which may then be sold, but they can't sell any options or shares they originally owned).
Now, the VCs who backed the company are under no such restrictions, and in fact they make pretty much all of their money at the IPO. In fact, it usually doesn't matter whether the stock rises or falls at the IPO, the VCs make their money either by underwriting the IPO itself, or by selling their shares to institutional investors just before the shares hit the Over-The-Counter (OTC) market (NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, etc).
Why, yes, I do have a Series 7, why do you ask?
The question "Why did the chicken cross the road" is invalid.
You must be a riot at parties.
Entire towns and villages celebrated 9/11. One guy in Arizona killed a convenience store worker, and went to jail for it. Huge difference.
Well, you still could rather easily with google proper rather than google news. But I do see your point - it's hard to find odd sites when you don't know what to look for.
Really? Try doing a search for "Tucker Max" on Google. The guy's domain, tuckermax.com, doesn't even come up in the results. Google deletes things from it's system all the time, which means for large chunks of the public those things just don't exist anymore. That's frightening.
The new media journal is pushing the Mohamed is a paedophile meme:
Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old girl. How is that a "meme"?
Anyway, good on you google for not linking to hate as 'news' - the reaction of the moslem haters is as predictable as allways, crying about censorship, but frankly, everyone just thinks you're a bunch of whiners.
It might not be news, but it is opinion, even if you disagree with it. Now that Google has seen fit to decide for us which opinions we should read and which we should not, I'm sure we'll all sleep much more soundly at night.
At this very moment, my butt is parked in an Michigan office with a tie around my neck doing work I could do at home in my bunny slippers.
You can post on Slashdot in your bunny slippers? Who knew!
Ah, but this is the SAME sort of thinking behind the idea that "freedom OF religion" is not the same as "freedom FROM religion"
You're only partially correct. We have freedom "from" religion in the sense that no one can force us to participate in a given religion (except for Tom Cruise, he can force you into Scientology). But you do not have freedom "from" religion in the sense that you don't have to hear other people talking about their religion. Otherwise, you'd be stepping on their freedom of speech.
Well, I've never heard of a government being overthrown via a written document.
Magna Carta.
And why did King John sign the Magna Carta, again? Oh that's right, because if he didn't, all the nobles of England were threatening a civil war. So what was your point again?
From http://www.majorityleader.gov/:
Boehner: Budget Victory Demonstrates Republicans' Commitment to Fiscal Discipline
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement after House passage of the FY 2007 Budget Resolution:
Hastert is the Speaker of the House, not the Majority leader. If the summary can't get this basic fact right (or maybe it was the original article?), why believe any of the rest of it?
You also always see:
7 57_plane_evidence.html
Engine parts
Landing gear
Part of the wing
Just because you don't recognize it, doesn't mean those of us trained in photo analysis don't.
An excellent page debunking the conspiracy theorists: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_
what about all the government insiders who have spoken out about the government's role in 9/11 and gotten fired. Do they not count?
They only count if:
1) They exist.
2) They're not kooks.
Do you have proof that both points are true? If so, I'd like to see it.
There's no debris, no fuselage, no tail assembly, no cloud of dust, no nothin'
h t%2077&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:e n-US:official&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi shows dozens of images from the crashsite, all of them with debris clearly visible. Some are dupes of each other, but scroll through, there was a lot of debris scattered about.
Bzzt, wrong. http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20flig
And there has a to be at least A FEW government employees that have a conscience.
And this is the fatal flaw for all conspiracy theories. As Ben Franklin said, three can keep a secret if two are dead. And given just how many leaks there have been from this administration, it's completely absurd to believe the government had anything to do with 9/11 and someone hasn't leaked the documents proving that to the media.
I'm less locked-in with Windows
You keep using the word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'll bet if you looked around, you'd find accounting and POS packages that fit your business that run on Linux (or some other OS). They might be better (for some value of "better") than what you're using now, or they might be worse (ditto). But they almost certainly exist.
Nah, they just don't like emo.
It's ok, he's used to that.
We supposedly value "justice". But we seem to be living "vigilantism". And there are people who are 100% okay with that.
And we'll string ya up if you disagree!
I wouldn't go so far as to ask for sex, but start asking for personal advice. Every time you talk to the person, start lamenting about what a hell-hole your life has become. Start asking for advice on relationships, housecleaning, child-rearing, etc.
And make sure at least one of those questions revolves around "What do think these bumps on my dick mean?" Completely cross the line and ask outrageous and disgusting questions. They'll get the hint. Or they won't, but it'll be funny.
Well, we've heard stories of various congresscritters involved in all sorts of shenanigans....perhaps we'd better just outlaw Congress.
Probably the sanest and most reasoned response I've seen thus far.
In chapter 2, God creates man, decides it is not good for him to be alone, and so creates all of the animals.
Actually, if you read Genesis 2:19*, it implies the animals were already created and God just herded them past Adam to find a "suitable helper". So you can read that either way, depending on your own preconceived notions.
*No, I don't have the Bible memorized, I looked this up on BibleGateway.com.
I doubt a jury will convict him, though, this being a technical argument mainly and a computer crime, any jury they seat is bound to wind up confused and the best the prosecution can hope is that someone on the jury will have enough savvy to explain it to the others.
First off, no one on the jury is going to explain anything to anyone else. They're not experts and can't testify about the case. They can only examine what's been presented. (I'm not a lawyer, but I do watch L&O every Sunday, Tuesday, and Wednesay.)
Really what it'll come down is, which expert witness(es) is/are more believable, the prosecution's or the defense's? And as soon as the defense's witness agrees with the prosecutor when asked "Could he have pointed out the security flaw without actually stealing the data of the students?" (because, really, he could have), McCarty will be done.
I suspect it may take lawsuits to get them to change their ways.
Why not? Google's makes billions of dollars a year, and apparently mistreats small businesses/individuals by taking away small amounts of money from them. It might only be $100 per person, but if they do it a million times a year, that's pretty strong incentive for a lawyer to launch a class action suit. All it takes is one person who's been so mistreated to contact a good (as in ability, not in moral compass) class action attorney and start the process. You won't get the full $100 back, maybe you'll get $20, but it would be incentive to Google to fix their shit.
Oh wow, I didn't see that. That's pretty scary! You'd think they'd want something that wasn't printed together in the same place.
Guess you're right, maybe this did happen! If so, that Dutch traveler should sue the bejesus out of BA for not following common sense security standards on their site.
Good catch.