It's an automatically dialed call that plays a recorded message. Common sources include: - Scam artists. A classic one is claiming to be from "cardholder services", and if the victim calls back will attempt to get the victim to divulge personal and banking information. These are illegal, but it's hard to find out who's dialing.
- Political campaigns. These are very very common in early November in places that can determine major elections. The idea is to use robocalls from a nominally independent group to put out a message that you want voters to hear but not to have your candidate say on TV. There's now also a serious risk of these backfiring, so there have also been instances of campaigns pretending to robocall as the other campaign.
Heck yes it does: It makes targeted advertising using the information provided by their users.
The "actually make something" part was to exclude companies like Goldman Sachs and AIG, which make nothing and make their money by shuffling around the ownership of what was made.
A useful strategy to prevent that is to sell enough to make back the original investment, and let the rest just go for the ride. Because you're in pure profit territory, you're less likely to sell into a panic like a lot of people just did.
A weekly would be fine if it were a weekly with something unique and/or interesting to offer its readership. For instance, the Village Voice is still around, and still doing fine, because it does something fairly unique and very well.
That's why a useful strategy with fundamentally sound stocks is to play the counter-cyclical game: When the market is going "SELLSELLSELLOHGODSELLIT", that's your signal to start looking for a price that you will buy at. When the market is saying "This is the best company to ever exist!", start selling.
Of course, the risk in this strategy is that the reason the market is going SELLSELLSELL is because the stock is no longer sound. But that's unlikely if it's a company that actually makes something.
In the US, being sued is effectively a financial death sentence.
Unless, as is frequently the case, the loser is required to pay attorney's fees. Also common is for individual (as opposed to corporate) plaintiff's attorneys to be paid solely on a contingency basis, which is to say that they get a portion of whatever the winnings are.
If you go to court, you come out bankrupt, whether you win or lose, unless you are a multimillionaire or a big company.
... like eBay / PayPal.
IMO, you should not be able to claim anything above refunding the purchase price unless you and the seller explicitly agreed otherwise.
You sell me a pill that you represent as providing complete treatment for a particular disease for $5000. Because your pill is in fact a placebo laced with cyanide, I instead of getting better end up in the hospital for 3 months, creating $500,000 in medical bills. Why should the maximum penalty for you be only $5000?
It should be that citizens and institutions need to constantly be aware of why certain ideas are opposed.
Are you seriously suggesting that an average German doesn't understand why Nazis are trouble? I mean, they only have a large Holocaust monument approximately 350 meters from the seat of government, it's not like they think it's important or something.
I should point out that it's not any references to Nazis that are illegal, it's references to Nazis that are clearly intended to promote Nazis and Nazi values. The history books have the whole story, and that's fine. A few years ago, there was a production of The Producers, and laughing at Hitler was fine. But that's not what these guys are.
In Germany, pro-Nazi speech is illegal. It's not Twitter's fault that they're complying with the law of the country they're doing business in.
The reason it's illegal is twofold: (1) the United States and other allies imposed that rule on the Germans in 1945. (2) the Germans have since then made a big effort to make it abundantly clear that they are thoroughly sorry for what happened under the Nazis and want to make absolutely certain it never happens again.
Hugo Chavez has a very good reason for hating the US: the CIA support for an attempted coup in 2002. The only reason Chavez survived that was that the opposition was feeling magnanimous and probably wanted to put him through a show trial before killing him.
The way to change things is to join up with either of the two parties that closest matches your ideology and work to influence policy within.
That doesn't work, because Democrats or Republicans who are too far outside the box of what's acceptable by the party's real leadership (the fundraisers) will be either ignored or ousted.
The threat of significant minor parties have caused changes in policy: For instance, Franklin Roosevelt was considerably more left-wing than many of his cabinet wanted him to be, specifically because of the rise of the Socialist Party. So they aren't necessarily pointless.
I truly see Obama re-elected as a threat to the US
What exactly is the threat to America that Obama's reelection presents? We've had 4 years of Obama in charge, and I'm curious to know what evil you think he can do in, say, 2015, that he can't do right now.
(For the record, I'm voting for Stein this year because I prefer her foreign policy)
The "green" jobs investments were in approximately 300 companies, 13 of which have gone bankrupt. That's a better batting average than most venture capitalists.
How about government jobs for people currently unemployed? After all, we're already keeping them alive by paying them unemployment insurance, so why not pay them to do something instead of paying them to do nothing? Really, how I look at it: There's a ton of work that needs to be done in this country (e.g. highway bridges nearing collapse). There are millions of people who want to work and can't get jobs. Why are we not hiring the people who need work to do the work that needs to be done?
He deeply believes in the same type of socialistic approach that's led the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) to the brink of bankruptcy. Spain and Greece both currently have unemployment over 20%!
1. Several countries are far more socialistic than Spain or Greece and doing fine: Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Germany turned the corner a couple of years ago and are now slowly improving. See for yourself 2. The reason Spain, Greece, etc are in serious trouble is well-understood: Basically, the big German and UK banks loaned them a lot of cash shortly after the Euro became unified, and after the financial crisis demanded all their money back. Spain is a particularly bad example if you believe that massive government deficits caused a crisis, because Spain's government was running at a surplus when the crisis hit.
Romney's economic ideas are a proven formula for turning around the economy.
Romney's economic ideas don't add up - the congressional staff that handle these kinds of proposals crunched the numbers and found that there was no combination of loopholes that would allow a 20% reduction in tax rates to have no effect on revenue (4% would have worked, 20% isn't even close to working). How is that a proven formula again?
I understand: Since 1980, every Republican running for president has tried to pretend that they were Ronald Reagan running against Jimmy Carter. But Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter, Mitt Romney is definitely not Ronald Reagan, and the current economic problems are nothing like the problems we had in 1980.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an automatically dialed call that plays a recorded message. Common sources include:
- Scam artists. A classic one is claiming to be from "cardholder services", and if the victim calls back will attempt to get the victim to divulge personal and banking information. These are illegal, but it's hard to find out who's dialing.
- Political campaigns. These are very very common in early November in places that can determine major elections. The idea is to use robocalls from a nominally independent group to put out a message that you want voters to hear but not to have your candidate say on TV. There's now also a serious risk of these backfiring, so there have also been instances of campaigns pretending to robocall as the other campaign.
Heck yes it does: It makes targeted advertising using the information provided by their users.
The "actually make something" part was to exclude companies like Goldman Sachs and AIG, which make nothing and make their money by shuffling around the ownership of what was made.
A useful strategy to prevent that is to sell enough to make back the original investment, and let the rest just go for the ride. Because you're in pure profit territory, you're less likely to sell into a panic like a lot of people just did.
No, the problem is the content.
A weekly would be fine if it were a weekly with something unique and/or interesting to offer its readership. For instance, the Village Voice is still around, and still doing fine, because it does something fairly unique and very well.
That's why a useful strategy with fundamentally sound stocks is to play the counter-cyclical game: When the market is going "SELLSELLSELLOHGODSELLIT", that's your signal to start looking for a price that you will buy at. When the market is saying "This is the best company to ever exist!", start selling.
Of course, the risk in this strategy is that the reason the market is going SELLSELLSELL is because the stock is no longer sound. But that's unlikely if it's a company that actually makes something.
In the US, being sued is effectively a financial death sentence.
Unless, as is frequently the case, the loser is required to pay attorney's fees. Also common is for individual (as opposed to corporate) plaintiff's attorneys to be paid solely on a contingency basis, which is to say that they get a portion of whatever the winnings are.
If you go to court, you come out bankrupt, whether you win or lose, unless you are a multimillionaire or a big company.
... like eBay / PayPal.
IMO, you should not be able to claim anything above refunding the purchase price unless you and the seller explicitly agreed otherwise.
You sell me a pill that you represent as providing complete treatment for a particular disease for $5000. Because your pill is in fact a placebo laced with cyanide, I instead of getting better end up in the hospital for 3 months, creating $500,000 in medical bills. Why should the maximum penalty for you be only $5000?
You can, however, vote for the upper management team, who have to tell you about different price points and available product packages.
At least you don't have to deliver your opt-out notice in person and wrestle a grizzly to get inside their offices.
That's a fantastic idea. We'll be back with another contract update soon.
Thanks,
PayPal legal department
It should be that citizens and institutions need to constantly be aware of why certain ideas are opposed.
Are you seriously suggesting that an average German doesn't understand why Nazis are trouble? I mean, they only have a large Holocaust monument approximately 350 meters from the seat of government, it's not like they think it's important or something.
I should point out that it's not any references to Nazis that are illegal, it's references to Nazis that are clearly intended to promote Nazis and Nazi values. The history books have the whole story, and that's fine. A few years ago, there was a production of The Producers, and laughing at Hitler was fine. But that's not what these guys are.
In Germany, pro-Nazi speech is illegal. It's not Twitter's fault that they're complying with the law of the country they're doing business in.
The reason it's illegal is twofold: (1) the United States and other allies imposed that rule on the Germans in 1945. (2) the Germans have since then made a big effort to make it abundantly clear that they are thoroughly sorry for what happened under the Nazis and want to make absolutely certain it never happens again.
In other words, never trust a man wearing a better suit than you.
Hugo Chavez has a very good reason for hating the US: the CIA support for an attempted coup in 2002. The only reason Chavez survived that was that the opposition was feeling magnanimous and probably wanted to put him through a show trial before killing him.
So the real question is what the equivalent rules are for Roman treasure finds here in the United States!
(No, I'm not being serious)
Yup, you read it wrong: It wasn't the dogs exploding, but the detection devices exploding.
The way to change things is to join up with either of the two parties that closest matches your ideology and work to influence policy within.
That doesn't work, because Democrats or Republicans who are too far outside the box of what's acceptable by the party's real leadership (the fundraisers) will be either ignored or ousted.
The threat of significant minor parties have caused changes in policy: For instance, Franklin Roosevelt was considerably more left-wing than many of his cabinet wanted him to be, specifically because of the rise of the Socialist Party. So they aren't necessarily pointless.
I truly see Obama re-elected as a threat to the US
What exactly is the threat to America that Obama's reelection presents? We've had 4 years of Obama in charge, and I'm curious to know what evil you think he can do in, say, 2015, that he can't do right now.
(For the record, I'm voting for Stein this year because I prefer her foreign policy)
That's offensive to drunk clergymen. I'm afraid you're going to have to go with:
Someone walked into a bar and said "Ouch!"
Why has it become "good" writing to hedge everything you ever say?
Because doing that makes the writer seem like less of an idiot when somebody demonstrates that the prediction or argument is flat wrong.
You should familiarize yourself with the Rule of Funny.
Also, the peak of the Laffer Curve is somewhere around a 75% marginal tax rate.
The "green" jobs investments were in approximately 300 companies, 13 of which have gone bankrupt. That's a better batting average than most venture capitalists.
Errr....gov't jobs for all??? Hell no.
How about government jobs for people currently unemployed? After all, we're already keeping them alive by paying them unemployment insurance, so why not pay them to do something instead of paying them to do nothing? Really, how I look at it: There's a ton of work that needs to be done in this country (e.g. highway bridges nearing collapse). There are millions of people who want to work and can't get jobs. Why are we not hiring the people who need work to do the work that needs to be done?
He deeply believes in the same type of socialistic approach that's led the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) to the brink of bankruptcy. Spain and Greece both currently have unemployment over 20%!
1. Several countries are far more socialistic than Spain or Greece and doing fine: Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Germany turned the corner a couple of years ago and are now slowly improving. See for yourself
2. The reason Spain, Greece, etc are in serious trouble is well-understood: Basically, the big German and UK banks loaned them a lot of cash shortly after the Euro became unified, and after the financial crisis demanded all their money back. Spain is a particularly bad example if you believe that massive government deficits caused a crisis, because Spain's government was running at a surplus when the crisis hit.
Romney's economic ideas are a proven formula for turning around the economy.
Romney's economic ideas don't add up - the congressional staff that handle these kinds of proposals crunched the numbers and found that there was no combination of loopholes that would allow a 20% reduction in tax rates to have no effect on revenue (4% would have worked, 20% isn't even close to working). How is that a proven formula again?
I understand: Since 1980, every Republican running for president has tried to pretend that they were Ronald Reagan running against Jimmy Carter. But Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter, Mitt Romney is definitely not Ronald Reagan, and the current economic problems are nothing like the problems we had in 1980.
I'm shocked, shocked!%N#)NO CARRIER
Oh, they're running things off of Oracle then?