Well, since it is charity, she gets to look good for donating, but since it is her charity, she gets the perks of traveling around for free, eating for free and enjoying a host of other benefits buried into the administrative costs of the charity. I was not able to quickly find the administrative costs of her organization, unfortunately. Yes, that would be a huge benefit. However, if it's not her charity would she actually come out ahead by adding $X to her income and then giving away that same $X to someone else's charity?
But it is not really so much about her making money in this case. It is more to prevent someone else from making money. Agreed.
You havent met many accountants have you. Apparently I need to meet some more. I was thinking that if she makes $100M a year, of course her accountant will find ways to reduce her tax burden significantly. However if this lawsuit wins her another $1M on top of that and she donates it to charity she has another $1M in taxable revenue but another $1M in write-offs so it nets out the same. You're saying she could actually come out ahead in that scenario?
...which is also tax deductible. And what would be the point of adding profit to your income just to turn around and deduct it again by giving it away?
Get it for Resistance, Warhawk, Motorstorm, and Uncharted (next week) too. Maybe Eye of Judgment---if you liked Triple Triad in FF8, it's sortof like that, but way cooler and deeper (and online). Uncharted seems quite cool... I've been regularly watching the various videos and just recently played through the demo. Not a bad game, but I think I'll wait until some more reviews come out or rent it first before buying. But regarding Resistance, is it actually possible to play that without a mouse? I'm a pretty decent FPS player on the PC and I downloaded the demo for Resistance but can't play it worth a damn with the analog stick. Is this just a matter of practice or should I hook up a USB mouse already?
I'll wait until Amazon rolls out the sequel to its Mechanical Turk concept, the Mechanical Doc. You pay thousands of people $1 each to perform incisions, clamp stuff, remove this, stitch up that, and voila! Open source surgery! After all, one pair of eyes may not be able to spot a problem but thousands of eyes should be able to correct any ailment.
Seriously if the user has subscribed to multiple mailing lists and the same mail is send to more than one of them he SHOULD get more than one copy. Group alias != mailing list. If those multiple copies are the result of different Message-IDs, then you should get multiple copies. However, if your CEO sends out an internal announcement and copies five distribution groups that you're a member of then you'll get only one message since that's the equivalent of doing a "RCPT TO: <you@yourdomain.com>" five times.
Ok, so, add to that, two books on how to murder someone to get away with it... ... where the receipt for the purchase of those two books (described as books on investigative techniques... can you cite the titles of those books?) was dated five days after her disappearance. Unless you have evidence that the receipt was manufactured after the fact in order to hide the real purchase occurring *before* the murder, you should probably stop trolling that one.
However, your other line of reasoning is quite interesting. Because, according to statistics, if he abused his wife then he's more likely to have killed her. Let's say that a generous 5% of spouse abusers end up killing their spouse. So if we can demonstrate that he was abusive, I say we just run a random number generator. If the result of the random number generator is less than or equal to 0.05 then we simply kill him since you can't argue with statistics.
But if your point is that abusers should not deserve to live, then you're advocating rounding up any human being who has ever abused any other human being and killing them. Wives verbally and physically abuse husbands, children abuse their parents, people abuse welfare or other government programs (which is ultimately an abuse of taxpaying people), people abuse the kindness of strangers, you verbally abuse people who disagree with your viewpoint... we should kill them all?
Is there a name for this sort of statement? You know, the "I'd call you x, but I'm above that sort of thing". Whatever the name is, I think it's a corollary to saying something like "No offense, but you're a total moron".
As long as we are using the family analogy, wouldn't Minix be more like an uncle to Linux? In the land of Unix (and parts of the US) the family tree looks like a wreath.
Of course, there's no guarantee how long such businesses will last. If the price on these things drops into the $1200 range or lower, anyone who really needs the fab service would probably buy their own. Shh... don't tell Kinko's that people can print their own stuff for less.
I'm jumping late into the conversation here, but this caught my eye:
In fact, when we use the defenses, yes, they are as bulletproof as placeholders. And when your bulletproof defense is to use placeholders, but then you don't use them, well, you are wide open. Would not the use of stored procedures make it bulletproof? Assuming your programmers don't have admin access to the database, you could provide them with a database user who has no access other than to make calls to certain stored procedures. This would enforce the security model as they otherwise couldn't do anything with the DB.
What kind of bullshit is this: "have become a standard component of college applications for jocks?"
I work in a school in a major metropolitan area with many great sports players. I guarantee you that if this was a "standard component" of college applications in any way I would have heard of it before.
Why must you stretch the truth? No where near a majority of "jocks" have even heard of this. It's called marketing. Build up social proof by demonstrating responses of many others, highlight others' past successes, and give testimonials from similar people. Promote the concept as being "standard" and people will not want to be left out.
Of course, one would suspect something if a set of parents spent $50 grand on hiring Pixar to make their son's youtube video. Madam, we're very impressed by your son's video. Not only does he have a high polygon count, but the vertex shading is incredible.
I know this may be a little controversial, but can we just skip all the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes? So... in Stormx2's Slashdot, Soviet Russia jokes skip you?
I'm not a big gamer, so maybe I don't quite "get it", but when I play a game, I'm usually playing because it's *not* like real life. If I wanted a game that was just like real life, I'd go out side and experience actual real life. In real life, can you race your $100,000 vehicle through downtown Tokyo smashing into things multiple times, all the while never seeing any advertising? Without belaboring the obvious, you have a point if you're talking about SimDishwashing or something but the reason games -- even ones that attempt to model real life -- are popular is because they allow you to do things you can't do in real life.
With no ability to register any shots to your arms, legs, crotch, ass, or headshots... plus only four air bags on front and back, it sounds like it sure can let me feel *exactly* where I'd get hit.
Bull. Google runs a customized version of Linux and only uses it internally, they aren't required to give the source to people who visit their website. They would have, had that particular nasty clause originally intended for inclusion in the GPLv3 been included.
The difference, of course, is that Microsoft achieved its position by leveraging its dominant position in order to strong-arm other companies. Google, even though it was late to the game, achieved its position because users found its product to be superior even though its competition had the dominant position at the time The law doesn't care how a company came to be a monopoly, simply whether it now is, or not. If Google can be shown to be in a monopolistic position, it will be constrained like Microsoft. Company law does not judge on morality. Of course the law doesn't judge morality. However, you're wrong on your second point. If Google were shown to be "in a monopolistic position" they wouldn't automatically be constrained. That would only happen if they abused their position in order to limit natural competition.
Slashdot Mirror
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
...which is also tax deductible. And what would be the point of adding profit to your income just to turn around and deduct it again by giving it away?So what you do is modify the site to respond to Java 1.6 clients with an IP address of the FBI for example. I'm sure hilarity will ensue.
I'll wait until Amazon rolls out the sequel to its Mechanical Turk concept, the Mechanical Doc. You pay thousands of people $1 each to perform incisions, clamp stuff, remove this, stitch up that, and voila! Open source surgery! After all, one pair of eyes may not be able to spot a problem but thousands of eyes should be able to correct any ailment.
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all week.
However, your other line of reasoning is quite interesting. Because, according to statistics, if he abused his wife then he's more likely to have killed her. Let's say that a generous 5% of spouse abusers end up killing their spouse. So if we can demonstrate that he was abusive, I say we just run a random number generator. If the result of the random number generator is less than or equal to 0.05 then we simply kill him since you can't argue with statistics.
But if your point is that abusers should not deserve to live, then you're advocating rounding up any human being who has ever abused any other human being and killing them. Wives verbally and physically abuse husbands, children abuse their parents, people abuse welfare or other government programs (which is ultimately an abuse of taxpaying people), people abuse the kindness of strangers, you verbally abuse people who disagree with your viewpoint... we should kill them all?
And if you want to learn about IPv6 he has a good series of videos.
I love the Radio Shack "slogan" I saw a while back, perhaps on Slashdot: Radio Shack: You've got questions, we've got more!
I work in a school in a major metropolitan area with many great sports players. I guarantee you that if this was a "standard component" of college applications in any way I would have heard of it before.
Why must you stretch the truth? No where near a majority of "jocks" have even heard of this. It's called marketing. Build up social proof by demonstrating responses of many others, highlight others' past successes, and give testimonials from similar people. Promote the concept as being "standard" and people will not want to be left out.
With no ability to register any shots to your arms, legs, crotch, ass, or headshots... plus only four air bags on front and back, it sounds like it sure can let me feel *exactly* where I'd get hit.