I don't see that as more of a problem than endemic racism within the justice system itself. A rogue jury freeing him would be one thing; a judge handing down a six month sentence would be, in my eyes, far worse.
I'm not sure. Yes, in this space you have to constantly innovate, but that's true no matter your platform. There is no platform out there that will let you create an inviolable market segment for long.
It's not murky in the slightest. Most countries have quite specific laws about property, loss, abandonment, and the like. The only argument is about the damn thing's status when the guy picked it up.
Because he's one step ahead. The whole newspaper industry was at it, without a doubt. He's created a precedent about what happens to newspaper that get caught with their pants down and you can bet revelations will soon emerge about other people's rags.
Some people will abuse trust no matter what you pay them. But badly paid and unappreciated (in their eyes) police officers are very likely to feel they can start to push the boundaries.
Let's turn that argument around: if the face of repeated recidivism, why is it that you maintain prison "works"? Do you have any evidence that prison changes people's behaviour for the better, in aggregate?
You never go straight to an open prison. You start off in a cat A, along with the lifers and rapists, and you work your way into open prison.
That said, prison is a seriously fucked up concept. We don't even have serious scientific evidence that it works. Some people need to be out of reach of the public, but most need their mental illnesses and addictions treated and to get some training in basic life skills.
I don't have a lot of time for Dubya, but you can't deny that he's shown pretty good grace by keeping the hell out of the limelight since stepping down. He knows perfectly well what kind of attention he attracts, and he's sensible enough not to want to draw that on such an occasion.
The industrial uses of gold don't justify the price; only the fact that lots of irrational people want to own something yellow and shiny does. IIRC about 10% or something of that order goes to industrial (and dental/medical) uses; the rest gets sold to lovers of shiny yellow stuff. Individually, I suppose they're not being stupid, because the world is unlikely to run out of other people who like shiny yellow stuff any time soon, but collectively, it's pretty pointless.
It's hardly news that women's sex drive is more complex. As far as your studies go, I don't know many women that would answer one of those studies honestly. By the same token, I don't know many men who wouldn't be tempted to spin it just slightly.
No, the sexual needs of men and women are more or less equal; the difference is they don't want to have one-night-stands with *you*. For whatever reason.
Fraud is fraud. If someone's trying to defraud you, particularly at that scale, there is little you can do to defend yourself other than be very careful. And keep an eye on economic reality.
Here, though, we have really simple lack of comprehension about how Groupon, or any company, books sales. It sells coupons. The money it receives is its revenue. The article you linked has made the shocking discovery that revenue is not equal to profit. Well, duh.
That posting is bullshit. It is someone with enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not enough to actually know what they're talking about.
In short, Groupon's business model and first mover advantage has given them a licence to print money, for the time being at least. Stupid arguments over how revenue is being booked are completely irrelevant. And besides, do we really think that we are so smart that we've noticed this and not one of the investors at IPO will?
One man's flippant and pointless inquiry is another's raison d'etre. More to the point, if you're on the receiving end, they are *all* flippant and pointless. I have made a couple of enquiries under the act and while they were important to me, a public interest test would probably have knocked them out.
If freedom of information means anything, it means that the zombie invaders must be answered along with everyone else. Set your information systems up properly, and it should be perfectly easy to manage the daft as well as the important.
It's actually not too bad. They're essentially checking that you're not batshit insane, not likely to kill yourself with it, and not likely to give or sell it to criminals. As long as you don't appear to be the kind of person that attempts to clear stoppages by banging the butt on the ground and staring down the barrel, you're generally OK.
There are about 93000 scheduled flights worldwide per day, and mobiles have been in widespread use for about ten years. So there have been, so far, 93000*365*10 flights without a known crash due to electronic device interference. Just calculating a confidence interval for numbers this small is difficult, but just for you I did it. At 99.99999% confidence, the number of crashes is less than about 8x10^-8. That is, if we re-ran the last ten years over and over again, 0.00001% of trials might have as many as 8x10^-8 crashes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see that as more of a problem than endemic racism within the justice system itself. A rogue jury freeing him would be one thing; a judge handing down a six month sentence would be, in my eyes, far worse.
Or just watch The Wire.
I'm not sure. Yes, in this space you have to constantly innovate, but that's true no matter your platform. There is no platform out there that will let you create an inviolable market segment for long.
It's not murky in the slightest. Most countries have quite specific laws about property, loss, abandonment, and the like. The only argument is about the damn thing's status when the guy picked it up.
Because he's one step ahead. The whole newspaper industry was at it, without a doubt. He's created a precedent about what happens to newspaper that get caught with their pants down and you can bet revelations will soon emerge about other people's rags.
I suggest you read a history of the French Revolution before you carry on too far with that line of thinking.
Some people will abuse trust no matter what you pay them. But badly paid and unappreciated (in their eyes) police officers are very likely to feel they can start to push the boundaries.
How does your neat theory explain Apple?
Let's turn that argument around: if the face of repeated recidivism, why is it that you maintain prison "works"? Do you have any evidence that prison changes people's behaviour for the better, in aggregate?
That said, prison is a seriously fucked up concept. We don't even have serious scientific evidence that it works. Some people need to be out of reach of the public, but most need their mental illnesses and addictions treated and to get some training in basic life skills.
[citation needed]
And if that $42m buys humanity's focus on its long term future, it will be the best $42m anyone ever spent.
The theory is, pay peanuts, get monkeys. If you don't pay police officers well you get people willing to accept bribes and to commit petty crime.
I don't have a lot of time for Dubya, but you can't deny that he's shown pretty good grace by keeping the hell out of the limelight since stepping down. He knows perfectly well what kind of attention he attracts, and he's sensible enough not to want to draw that on such an occasion.
It's worth pointing out the US did at one stage eliminate its debt entirely. It led to financial chaos.
The alternative being a country that fines you for crossing the goddamned *road*?
The industrial uses of gold don't justify the price; only the fact that lots of irrational people want to own something yellow and shiny does. IIRC about 10% or something of that order goes to industrial (and dental/medical) uses; the rest gets sold to lovers of shiny yellow stuff. Individually, I suppose they're not being stupid, because the world is unlikely to run out of other people who like shiny yellow stuff any time soon, but collectively, it's pretty pointless.
Ba-dum tshhh
It's hardly news that women's sex drive is more complex. As far as your studies go, I don't know many women that would answer one of those studies honestly. By the same token, I don't know many men who wouldn't be tempted to spin it just slightly.
No, the sexual needs of men and women are more or less equal; the difference is they don't want to have one-night-stands with *you*. For whatever reason.
Here, though, we have really simple lack of comprehension about how Groupon, or any company, books sales. It sells coupons. The money it receives is its revenue. The article you linked has made the shocking discovery that revenue is not equal to profit. Well, duh.
In short, Groupon's business model and first mover advantage has given them a licence to print money, for the time being at least. Stupid arguments over how revenue is being booked are completely irrelevant. And besides, do we really think that we are so smart that we've noticed this and not one of the investors at IPO will?
If freedom of information means anything, it means that the zombie invaders must be answered along with everyone else. Set your information systems up properly, and it should be perfectly easy to manage the daft as well as the important.
It's actually not too bad. They're essentially checking that you're not batshit insane, not likely to kill yourself with it, and not likely to give or sell it to criminals. As long as you don't appear to be the kind of person that attempts to clear stoppages by banging the butt on the ground and staring down the barrel, you're generally OK.
There are about 93000 scheduled flights worldwide per day, and mobiles have been in widespread use for about ten years. So there have been, so far, 93000*365*10 flights without a known crash due to electronic device interference. Just calculating a confidence interval for numbers this small is difficult, but just for you I did it. At 99.99999% confidence, the number of crashes is less than about 8x10^-8. That is, if we re-ran the last ten years over and over again, 0.00001% of trials might have as many as 8x10^-8 crashes.