Ms Terry I Hillson (her sexy pantyhosed legs are a plus too)
She can run circles around the males coding, but does have a real nasty habit of plucking her nostril hairs and eating them at meeting---YUCK.
But all in all a great programmer!
She was a real bright and witty lady, although she did have a really nasty habit of picking her nose and eating the booger at meetings. This really grossed people out. Still a very nice woman.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio: Japanese astronaut Keichi Nokamoto died this morning at 10:39 AM in Florida. Apparantly there was some sort of explosion, but no further details are available. Even if you did not admire his work, there is no denying his contributions to hardcore gangsta rap. Truly a Japanese icon!
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER - Today's launch of the space shuttle "Discovery" has been scrubbed. The launch was called off because of a faulty fuel-tank sensor. Discovery was supposed to take off for the first shuttle flight since the "Columbia" disaster of two and a-half years ago.
He is a really funny and brilliant guy. He does have a really nasty habit of picking his nose in public and eating the booger. This really grossed people out at meetings. Still a wonderful guy!
He is a truly brilliant guy, but has a real annoying habit of picking his nose in public and eating the booger. He really grossed people out at meetings. Still an amazing coworker!
Picture this:
Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It's a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.
So I'm trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.
The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh's crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood's creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!
Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh's murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore's size would provide a great deal of "bulletin board" space.
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they're not Christians or Jews.
There's another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?
As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world?
As I said, it's a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.
Picture this:
Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It's a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.
So I'm trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.
The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh's crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood's creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!
Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh's murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore's size would provide a great deal of "bulletin board" space.
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they're not Christians or Jews.
There's another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?
As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world?
As I said, it's a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.
A pointer is needed in most executable provisions of a language. I really thin M$ is going for overkill by patenting a computer-executable instruction for: receiving source code comprising at least one statement comprising a keyword representing a logical operator, and a first operand and a second operand; and generating from the source code, executable code for the at least one statement, the executable code evaluating to true when the first operand points to a first location in memory and the second operand points to a second location in memory that is different from the first location in memory, the at least one statement evaluating to false when the first operand and the second operand point to the same location in memory
that 90% inner city welfare types will vote Kerry and 90% of felons in prison will vote for Kerry and 90% of the gutless French would vote for Kerry if they could
Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry
Mon Oct 11 2004 10:22:17 ET
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday: "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%....
"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code.... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"
Slashdot Mirror
Ms Terry I Hillson (her sexy pantyhosed legs are a plus too) She can run circles around the males coding, but does have a real nasty habit of plucking her nostril hairs and eating them at meeting---YUCK. But all in all a great programmer!
at the God the Father's side
Like all cable companies F$$K you Roberts Family and Comcast sob's
She was a real bright and witty lady, although she did have a really nasty habit of picking her nose and eating the booger at meetings. This really grossed people out. Still a very nice woman.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio: Japanese astronaut Keichi Nokamoto died this morning at 10:39 AM in Florida. Apparantly there was some sort of explosion, but no further details are available. Even if you did not admire his work, there is no denying his contributions to hardcore gangsta rap. Truly a Japanese icon!
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER - Today's launch of the space shuttle "Discovery" has been scrubbed. The launch was called off because of a faulty fuel-tank sensor. Discovery was supposed to take off for the first shuttle flight since the "Columbia" disaster of two and a-half years ago.
He is a really funny and brilliant guy. He does have a really nasty habit of picking his nose in public and eating the booger. This really grossed people out at meetings. Still a wonderful guy!
right when he got out of college. Back then he used to eat his own feces at meetings...I guess he has mellowed over the years.
He is a truly brilliant guy, but has a real annoying habit of picking his nose in public and eating the booger. He really grossed people out at meetings. Still an amazing coworker!
Iam sick and tired of these environmental wackos
Old people put IBM up for sale
Picture this: Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It's a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified. So I'm trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another. The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh's crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood's creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech! Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh's murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore's size would provide a great deal of "bulletin board" space. Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they're not Christians or Jews. There's another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against? As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world? As I said, it's a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.
Picture this: Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It's a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified. So I'm trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another. The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh's crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood's creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech! Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh's murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore's size would provide a great deal of "bulletin board" space. Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they're not Christians or Jews. There's another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against? As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world? As I said, it's a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.
A pointer is needed in most executable provisions of a language. I really thin M$ is going for overkill by patenting a computer-executable instruction for: receiving source code comprising at least one statement comprising a keyword representing a logical operator, and a first operand and a second operand; and generating from the source code, executable code for the at least one statement, the executable code evaluating to true when the first operand points to a first location in memory and the second operand points to a second location in memory that is different from the first location in memory, the at least one statement evaluating to false when the first operand and the second operand point to the same location in memory
idiot
what a big spread that wouls be!
The extremely smart and the extremely stupid support Kerry...average folk support Bush
..Makes me proud to be an American Now we don't have to ask France and Germany for permission to defend ourselves
that 90% inner city welfare types will vote Kerry and 90% of felons in prison will vote for Kerry and 90% of the gutless French would vote for Kerry if they could
lower class welfare types and the rapist gang banger prison population, I suppose a very low IQ signifies a Democratic voter...just a guess though
...no more nails needed please
Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry Mon Oct 11 2004 10:22:17 ET Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday: "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ...
"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"
...it doesn't need anymore nails. Bush on his way to a landslide victory over "the walking corpse"
n/t
why in hell should anyone vote for you?