There are at least a half a dozen women who have told the same story and there is documented evidence of written complaints going back for years. You've just disproven your own argument.
Probably the "girlfriend" said "My uncle is sending a million bucks. Half for you half for me. He'll write it all to you. Then please put half in my account." Well this would seem unbelievable until a million dollar wire transfer showed up along with a card that said "Hope you enjoy the gift." This a really interesting way to take advantage of a third party. Typically you don't necessarily expect a scam when being *given* money.
I'm not saying that this is bad, but you simply can't spot a good scam email by looking at it. Legitimate invoices do come via email The way to verify this is to find the initial authorization (usually in the form of a purchase order) for the invoice. Many larger companies won't pay any invoice without a purchase order. Unfortunately this also leads to embarrassment as things like domain name renewals end up not getting paid.
It's a fair argument that people *should* have more rights in this area. However, this still doesn't mean we should expand the definition of computer hacking to be "anything I don't like." We should make rules specific to this.
Can you point to some specific examples? I follow the news pretty carefully but haven't seen this. The stories I've followed always start out with one accuser going public, more women coming out similar stories, third-parties providing corroboration of the story and, finally, a revelation that the person has actually paid hush money multiple times in the past. In fact, the accusations have been so credible that we (our society) has become more more inclined to believe accusations.
Where I *have* seen this happen is on college campuses and it's one of the few areas where our current secretary of education seems to have a good handle on the situation.
What I'm saying is that people are complicated and we all experience some level of cognitive dissonance I would not use the term hypocrite for people who agree on the *what* but disagree on the *how*. I would *disagree* with somebody who voted for higher income taxes to pay for affordable housing but then voted against a zoning change due to traffic concerns. But I wouldn't say that this person doesn't *want* to help. Nor would I apply the label in the opposite situation. They can't afford the tax increase but would be wiling to tolerate the traffic. Many times we have goals that are at cross-purposes. That's a function of being alive not a characteristic of any individual. That being said, I think that this is a poor policy choice and likely one of the things that leads to big government. I could certainly see, at some point, there being a demand that zoning is done at the state level. And that probably will harm everybody.
The issue is not with strike prices and taxes. It's that options have an expiration date. As an example, I was granted some options in 2007 at a (now publicly traded) company. They had a four year vesting period that ended in 2011 and a ten year expiration. So in October of 2020 (I don't know why it's not 2021), I can either (a) buy the options for cash and incur a tax event of (b) let them expire and lose all the value.
Since our company is publicly traded, when I buy the options and pay cash + incur taxes, I can sell some of them to soften the blow. In fact, for publicly traded companies, any broker will arrange an "exercise and sell to cover" which basically mean you exercise the shares and then sell just enough to cover the strike price. At tax time, if needed, I could sell more.
But if your company is still private when the expiration date comes up, you have to buy the shares and incur the taxes but you have no way to generate cash from the shares to cover those costs. That forces people to either lose value or take on debt to hold shares in a private company.
Yes but we're not anywhere close to that. Right now, New York is limited in a way similar to Silicon Valley. Google New York air rights and you'll see it's a complicated mess. There are only 300 million people in this country and we have a lot of land mass. We will run out of people well before we hit any physical limits on building skyscrapers.
What you are describing are liberal policies, not liberal people. Many people's convictions (on both sides of the aisle so to speak) go out the window when you talk about devaluing their biggest assets. Many people in silicon valley are "house poor" which is to say that their only real investment is their house. So although they may support the idea of affordable housing in the abstract, they're scared to death to lose property value.
Whether they are "liberals" or not really isn't relevant here. What is relevant is the bad housing policies that you described. The reality is that we get these types of policies in relatively wealthy areas regardless of political leaning. And that's because as people accumulate more wealth they have more time and resources and can be more politically active. Of course just about all of the densely populated areas of California are "liberal." There's no reason to run comments about human nature through the Rush Limbaugh filter.
I'm not aware of naked shorts being allowed anywhere. Do you know of a place where such exists. You can write calls or buy puts, but you can't actually short any securities that i know of without first borrowing the underlying asset.
There are restaurants that do this, especially in airports. And it really is way more pleasant. And they have power outlets at each table. In fact it's convenient enough that I'm sometimes willing to pay the usurious prices.
It seems that the hosts are committing a crime, but are they doing it for a perverted reason or just to protect their property? It's not acceptable either way and they will likely end up in jail if prosecuted. But I'd still want to know if there is a sexual motivation or if it's just that they realize that renting their house out to strangers is a really bad idea and then get desperate to minimize their risk.
Slashdot Mirror
There are at least a half a dozen women who have told the same story and there is documented evidence of written complaints going back for years. You've just disproven your own argument.
Even if all of this is true, they still don't *deserve* to be victims.
Probably the "girlfriend" said "My uncle is sending a million bucks. Half for you half for me. He'll write it all to you. Then please put half in my account." Well this would seem unbelievable until a million dollar wire transfer showed up along with a card that said "Hope you enjoy the gift." This a really interesting way to take advantage of a third party. Typically you don't necessarily expect a scam when being *given* money.
I'm not saying that this is bad, but you simply can't spot a good scam email by looking at it. Legitimate invoices do come via email The way to verify this is to find the initial authorization (usually in the form of a purchase order) for the invoice. Many larger companies won't pay any invoice without a purchase order. Unfortunately this also leads to embarrassment as things like domain name renewals end up not getting paid.
You can buy reading glasses in any drugstore without a prescription.
Certainly other large retailers have their own SKUs as well
It's a fair argument that people *should* have more rights in this area. However, this still doesn't mean we should expand the definition of computer hacking to be "anything I don't like." We should make rules specific to this.
I might make more turning it into a toxic waste dump.
Can you point to some specific examples? I follow the news pretty carefully but haven't seen this. The stories I've followed always start out with one accuser going public, more women coming out similar stories, third-parties providing corroboration of the story and, finally, a revelation that the person has actually paid hush money multiple times in the past. In fact, the accusations have been so credible that we (our society) has become more more inclined to believe accusations. Where I *have* seen this happen is on college campuses and it's one of the few areas where our current secretary of education seems to have a good handle on the situation.
What I'm saying is that people are complicated and we all experience some level of cognitive dissonance I would not use the term hypocrite for people who agree on the *what* but disagree on the *how*. I would *disagree* with somebody who voted for higher income taxes to pay for affordable housing but then voted against a zoning change due to traffic concerns. But I wouldn't say that this person doesn't *want* to help. Nor would I apply the label in the opposite situation. They can't afford the tax increase but would be wiling to tolerate the traffic. Many times we have goals that are at cross-purposes. That's a function of being alive not a characteristic of any individual. That being said, I think that this is a poor policy choice and likely one of the things that leads to big government. I could certainly see, at some point, there being a demand that zoning is done at the state level. And that probably will harm everybody.
The issue is not with strike prices and taxes. It's that options have an expiration date. As an example, I was granted some options in 2007 at a (now publicly traded) company. They had a four year vesting period that ended in 2011 and a ten year expiration. So in October of 2020 (I don't know why it's not 2021), I can either (a) buy the options for cash and incur a tax event of (b) let them expire and lose all the value. Since our company is publicly traded, when I buy the options and pay cash + incur taxes, I can sell some of them to soften the blow. In fact, for publicly traded companies, any broker will arrange an "exercise and sell to cover" which basically mean you exercise the shares and then sell just enough to cover the strike price. At tax time, if needed, I could sell more. But if your company is still private when the expiration date comes up, you have to buy the shares and incur the taxes but you have no way to generate cash from the shares to cover those costs. That forces people to either lose value or take on debt to hold shares in a private company.
Yes but we're not anywhere close to that. Right now, New York is limited in a way similar to Silicon Valley. Google New York air rights and you'll see it's a complicated mess. There are only 300 million people in this country and we have a lot of land mass. We will run out of people well before we hit any physical limits on building skyscrapers.
That's good. Reduce the risk of repetitive stress injury.
What you are describing are liberal policies, not liberal people. Many people's convictions (on both sides of the aisle so to speak) go out the window when you talk about devaluing their biggest assets. Many people in silicon valley are "house poor" which is to say that their only real investment is their house. So although they may support the idea of affordable housing in the abstract, they're scared to death to lose property value.
In this part of California, it's a pretty good guess
Whether they are "liberals" or not really isn't relevant here. What is relevant is the bad housing policies that you described. The reality is that we get these types of policies in relatively wealthy areas regardless of political leaning. And that's because as people accumulate more wealth they have more time and resources and can be more politically active. Of course just about all of the densely populated areas of California are "liberal." There's no reason to run comments about human nature through the Rush Limbaugh filter.
Nothing if you've had enough sex while you were alive!
I'm not aware of naked shorts being allowed anywhere. Do you know of a place where such exists. You can write calls or buy puts, but you can't actually short any securities that i know of without first borrowing the underlying asset.
There are restaurants that do this, especially in airports. And it really is way more pleasant. And they have power outlets at each table. In fact it's convenient enough that I'm sometimes willing to pay the usurious prices.
Right, but a breach of contract is a minor civil matter. Intentionally recording somebody when they have an expectation of privacy is a criminal one.
What if they turn the cameras off during the rental period?
It seems that the hosts are committing a crime, but are they doing it for a perverted reason or just to protect their property? It's not acceptable either way and they will likely end up in jail if prosecuted. But I'd still want to know if there is a sexual motivation or if it's just that they realize that renting their house out to strangers is a really bad idea and then get desperate to minimize their risk.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is competition from soccer. That might be a part of the problem as well.
I think you can get every game audio on SiriusXM? http://www.siriusxm.com/nflsch...
I think this should have gotten a +5 Funny!