OK, so you hit the refresh button two or three times, and if the problem keeps coming up then you know something serious is going on and then you investigate. There's no point wasting time or resources fixing something that might not even be a problem.
I think the better solution to the problem you're posing (the number of people in the world to meet and know) is to become a swinger. My wife and I don't play with everyone we meet, but we've had a chance to meet lots of really interesting people and have a lot of fun with them. It's also allowed us to explore aspects of our relationship that were taboo to our parents' generation.
At the same time, we still have a partner we can depend on, and someone we can plan a future and raise children with. It's a win-win.
In other news, lawyers are linked to 100% of divorces.
Not true, unless you count the judge who signs off on the divorce. My current wife and her ex-husband (or as she likes to say, her "first ex-husband") got a divorce without having any lawyers involved. Of course, they were both civil adults about the whole thing, and really a model for how to get a divorce. As opposed to my ex-wife and myself, who fought over everything and helped several lawyers pay off their cars early.
The Ninth Circuit decision is not binding on the Eight Circuit, so that other case could go either way still. If the judges side with the plaintiff, though, expect one or both cases to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bottom line, flirting should never be unnerving, even if it's with someone you want to, er, fork and who is forbidden fruit for one reason or another. Just relax and go with it (but don't follow through with your sister-in-law, that has zero potential to end well no matter what happens).
The big deal is the United States has a First Amendment to our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. Traditionally, the very idea of investigating reporters was anathema, and when the Bush Administration did it, people were (rightly) upset about it. But now the Obama Administration is doing that and more, and no one seems to care.
Just another example that Democrats (and Republicans, too) really don't have principles, they just want the other side to do whatever their side is doing.
Just kidding, I think you're right on the money. But anytime I try to say something like that, that's invariably the response I get. Pretty infuriating.
You're confusing someone maliciously causing an equipment failure to churn profits for himself with an actuarially-derived lifetime for your car. Yes, most cars make it past 100,000 miles, and half start to fail at 150,000, therefore giving a warranty to 100,000 miles is less risky than giving one to 150,000 miles. It's just math.
If the CEO of a company commits fraud, he would be fired. Short and simple, and it happens all the time. To say that "morals don't apply to corporations" is the most idiotic drivel that gets promulgated on this site.
Just because you have a job at a corporation doesn't mean your ethics go out the window. And no, chasing the dollar does not excuse one from making immoral or illegal choices, and those choices can still get you fired and thrown in prison. Thinking otherwise is a crock of shit.
There can be a moral code associated with a group (such as a tribe, or a corporation), but morality can only be applied to the actions of a thinking individual.
If you think a thinking individual isn't behind the actions of a given corporation, you need to start taking your meds again.
Corporations can't win, they aren't protected by the law in areas like this.
They are when they follow it. I'm unclear on how freezing a customer's account without proving a violation of the Terms of Service is an example of "following the law".
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem using PayPal as a buyer if that's how a merchant has their account set up (though I'll only use credit cards through them and won't ever, ever, link a bank account with them). But who in their right mind would ever use this fucktards as their clearing house for financial transactions? Just get a merchant account and use your bank's credit card processing services, or go with someone like Google Checkout or Authorize.net. Using PayPal seems like you're just begging to have your accounts seized and funds raided because someone there doesn't like you.
A former CIA analyst and retired Army officer (the article mistakenly calls him a former FBI analyst) stood silently in protest at the very speech you referenced, and was beaten by security guards for his insolence. It's highly relevant.
It should be noted that this same individual engaged Donald Rumsfeld in a debate at a Town Hall meeting in 2006, and Rumsfeld gave him more time to talk and defended his right to free speech. Yes, Hillary Clinton is less of a civil libertarian than Donald Rumsfeld. Welcome to Bizarro World, enjoy your stay.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, if you can monitor the zombie processes, why can't the same script kill those processes?
OK, so you hit the refresh button two or three times, and if the problem keeps coming up then you know something serious is going on and then you investigate. There's no point wasting time or resources fixing something that might not even be a problem.
Yes, it's true, Apple hardware has been overpriced since the beginning.
I think the better solution to the problem you're posing (the number of people in the world to meet and know) is to become a swinger. My wife and I don't play with everyone we meet, but we've had a chance to meet lots of really interesting people and have a lot of fun with them. It's also allowed us to explore aspects of our relationship that were taboo to our parents' generation.
At the same time, we still have a partner we can depend on, and someone we can plan a future and raise children with. It's a win-win.
In other news, lawyers are linked to 100% of divorces.
Not true, unless you count the judge who signs off on the divorce. My current wife and her ex-husband (or as she likes to say, her "first ex-husband") got a divorce without having any lawyers involved. Of course, they were both civil adults about the whole thing, and really a model for how to get a divorce. As opposed to my ex-wife and myself, who fought over everything and helped several lawyers pay off their cars early.
Well, one was started with one...
It's the homosexuals on Facebook. They're in it with the reverse vampires.
You've got your translations mixed up. That's an ad for a new work-at-home business plan, and it only takes 300 scrolls to start.
It actually looks promising, I'm gonna go see if it's still available.
The Ninth Circuit decision is not binding on the Eight Circuit, so that other case could go either way still. If the judges side with the plaintiff, though, expect one or both cases to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bottom line, flirting should never be unnerving, even if it's with someone you want to, er, fork and who is forbidden fruit for one reason or another. Just relax and go with it (but don't follow through with your sister-in-law, that has zero potential to end well no matter what happens).
I can tell you if there's one guy out there who's so totally humble
It's Hollywood, so yes, there's only one guy out there who's humble.
it is a little unnerving when your sister-in-law asks you, "Would you like a fok?"!
Why? Is she fat? She sounds fat, with her obsession with tableware.
Um, he's going to Utah. Forget the hookers, he needs to factor in the cost of getting two new wives.
The big deal is the United States has a First Amendment to our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. Traditionally, the very idea of investigating reporters was anathema, and when the Bush Administration did it, people were (rightly) upset about it. But now the Obama Administration is doing that and more, and no one seems to care.
Just another example that Democrats (and Republicans, too) really don't have principles, they just want the other side to do whatever their side is doing.
You sound like a racist, teabagging, Republican.
</sarcasm>
Just kidding, I think you're right on the money. But anytime I try to say something like that, that's invariably the response I get. Pretty infuriating.
You're confusing someone maliciously causing an equipment failure to churn profits for himself with an actuarially-derived lifetime for your car. Yes, most cars make it past 100,000 miles, and half start to fail at 150,000, therefore giving a warranty to 100,000 miles is less risky than giving one to 150,000 miles. It's just math.
It's just a TV show, you should really just relax.
Jesus, you're an idiot.
If the CEO of a company commits fraud, he would be fired. Short and simple, and it happens all the time. To say that "morals don't apply to corporations" is the most idiotic drivel that gets promulgated on this site.
Just because you have a job at a corporation doesn't mean your ethics go out the window. And no, chasing the dollar does not excuse one from making immoral or illegal choices, and those choices can still get you fired and thrown in prison. Thinking otherwise is a crock of shit.
There can be a moral code associated with a group (such as a tribe, or a corporation), but morality can only be applied to the actions of a thinking individual.
If you think a thinking individual isn't behind the actions of a given corporation, you need to start taking your meds again.
They may, but I don't recall ever hearing of such behavior for either company. Do you?
Morals do not apply to corporations.
My Business Ethics professor would've flunked you for saying that in class.
Corporations can't win, they aren't protected by the law in areas like this.
They are when they follow it. I'm unclear on how freezing a customer's account without proving a violation of the Terms of Service is an example of "following the law".
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem using PayPal as a buyer if that's how a merchant has their account set up (though I'll only use credit cards through them and won't ever, ever, link a bank account with them). But who in their right mind would ever use this fucktards as their clearing house for financial transactions? Just get a merchant account and use your bank's credit card processing services, or go with someone like Google Checkout or Authorize.net. Using PayPal seems like you're just begging to have your accounts seized and funds raided because someone there doesn't like you.
WTF? It was the same speech that was referenced by both Taco and yourself. It's an aside to demonstrate Clinton's hypocrisy on that issue.
True, it's not relevant to the discussion of unions. But you're the one who mentioned her speech, I was just following up from that.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/fmr-fbi-analyst-ray-mcgovern-i-was-beaten-at-hillary-clinton-speech
A former CIA analyst and retired Army officer (the article mistakenly calls him a former FBI analyst) stood silently in protest at the very speech you referenced, and was beaten by security guards for his insolence. It's highly relevant.
It should be noted that this same individual engaged Donald Rumsfeld in a debate at a Town Hall meeting in 2006, and Rumsfeld gave him more time to talk and defended his right to free speech. Yes, Hillary Clinton is less of a civil libertarian than Donald Rumsfeld. Welcome to Bizarro World, enjoy your stay.