Or it's their preferred medium for contact/managing relationships. Another possibility is that it's just be one an expectation - like having an email address, website, business card or fax number would have been.
I personally don't like this. Facebook for me is a personal thing, not something I'd like to use for business. If they ask Facebook, I'd have to ask why? If its for contact, then use email, phone or LinkedIn, or smoke signals for all I care. Thry may just as well be asking for my girlfrirnd's mobile number.
I heard that he's been a gentle and considerate lover to practically every in animate object in Thailand. Rumour has it that the entire Thai government recharge his kingly powers of love by performing a solemn bukake ceremony, from which the king emerges with sticky eyebrows and a potent set of nuts. All heil King Bumball! May his glorious regime persist long after his syphilis wracked cock finally falls off.He is a rapist.
If insolvent, the administrator would have the say here. The directors can't simply transfer the assets to a new company, and then walk away leaving the creditors with nothing. Granted it depends on the process being followed, and that creditors may not get the deal they'd want.
Taxes can be written off as part of liquidation, but then the administrator is required to consider the best interests of the creditors when selling assets - meaning that it'd be problematic to sell the assets to the new company for a peppercorn price.
In which type of proceeding would the new company be in a position to grab substantial assets, with the creditors left with substantially less or even nothing?
It's a shame, yet what's the alternative? Software patents or something similar that'd cover look and feel, or even game concerts. To go down that route would be like allowing authors to have a monopoly on the murder mystery in which the the ostensibly bumbling detective unmasks the criminal through a gradual process incessant badgering and questioning. Sure, if code or other copyrightable assets are being swiped, then yes, get the lawyers in. Other than that I see more problems created than would be solved by allowing a game concept and basic appearance to be protected. Let's be clear though, I have absolutely no love at all for Zynga. They're the "copy it, pile it high, and sell it cheap" of the gaming world.
What you describe is possible, yet probitively difficult. Transferring assets with this intent, particularly if the old company becomes insolvent, is a criminal offence (at least in the UK). There is a whole raft of laws that make this process more complicated than slipping on a fresh pair of underpants. Granted though, fly-by-night operations could try such a thing, yet by your logic, pretty much all laws can be rendered useless.
This! Consumers have a responsibility of due diligence - I'm fine with selling a drive at and alarming mark-up if a consumer is happy to pay for it. Likewise, retailers using true predatory practices, such as telling a consumer that a 100 dollar power cable will give sharper DVD playback than a kettle lead would, should be actionable under consumer law.
He may be referring to the chilling effect that SOPA and PIPA would have. Although content may be CC or GPL licensed, SOPA and PIPA would very likely encourage sites to be far less open to user posted content.
And 816 comments on this one, and 236 on the earlier SOPA/PIPA posting and counting would suggest that this topic is getting some pretty serious traffic.
I'd say it's more Wikipedia's name recognition that works in their favour. Having the cunts at ICE, or whoever would administer these seizures, shutting down very well known and mainstream sites would attract a lot of negative publicity. That would certainly hurt Congressmen and Senators who haven't made trousered enough bribes, or arranged a comfy job to slip in to, if they should find themselves booted out of office.
Yep, the issue with having the state being the arbiter of true religion is one of the more intractable issues with providing tax benefits to religions for being religions. I'm fine with a level playing field in which a church and a secular community club operate by the same set of rules when seeking tax exempt status. I think a reasonable argument could be made that churches can and do perform a useful function in their communities, even if I believe that their belief system is baloney. The state can't possible come up with a checklist that would apply to all religions without discriminating against the more unconventional ones.
On taxing being a restriction on religion, it's no more restrictive than prohibiting prayer meetings on a busy highway, or arresting a Sadhu holy man for going for a naked stroll. Providing tax exempt status to religions is the state involving itself in the establishment of religion. Religions shouldn't be treated any better or any worse than secular groups. It seems obscene to me that religious organizations can not only be tax exempt, like secular groups, but can also be free from the burden of having to file tax returns. Scientology is the elephant in the room when examine the opaque nature of some religious organizations.
In this petition, it's asked that the phrase "under God" be removed, as it's arguably a violation of the first amendment. The first issue was the person chosen to respond to this request: Joshua DuBois, the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Slight bias here, given that DuBois heads-up a department that was itself a flagrant violation of separation of church and state. His answer was an exercise in contradictory hand waving and trying to deny that it's stupid to that a multi-cultural nation, with a pretty strong constitutional protection against religion infecting government, should keep a 1950s addition to the pledge that says that the country is subservient to the Christian god. Yeah, Hindus and stuff are welcome in America, so long as they accept that their elephant guy and the chick with the arms are not running shit here. Personally I don't see the pledge as being a pressing issue - there are far more egregious violations of the first amendment, such as the tax breaks that churches get just by virtue of being religious.
And the USA never signed their half of the bargain.
They delayed, but it was eventually ratified on both sides of the Atlantic.This happened during that rather unfortunate time when Blair's government was lubing up and giving the Bush administration anything it asked for, in the hope that complete servility would improve the trans-atlantic relationship. Blair had little success. Bush was always the pitcher, and Blair the catcher. The best he achieved was an occasional reach-around, and ultimately what was there to show for this? Hemorrhoids and a fucking big bill for Bush's religious/ideological and incompetently pursued wars. Blair would do this world a favor by removing himself from it, and he can fucking take Cameron and Clegg with him.
Depends on what one would consider to be Christianity. There are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity worldwide, most of which emerged elsewhere. These Christian sects can have very drastic disagreements on core doctrine, so I don't see why Mormonism can be singled out for not having emerged in the Middle East. When considering Mormonism, take a look at Catholicism. How much of modern-day Catholicism is based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi, and how much of it developed later in Rome and Greece?
It seems more salient to ask why a government has any role in the recognition of religions. Tax breaks and the assorted privileges that come from being a religion places the state in the odd position of being the arbiter of true faith.
I've had similarly good experiences with Opera. It's snappy and stable. In terms of nice gadgets, it's a choice between iCab and Opera, and I generally juggle between iCab and Opera on iOS. On the desktop I'm increasingly drifting over to Opera. Having DuckDuckGo included as built-in option for searches sweetens the deal.
Yeah, the mail and BitTorrent clients will be a concern for Unix "one tool for one job" purists, but really I don't see these additional functions detracting from what is a fast and damned friendly to use browser. To some extent, I think of it as being the BBEdit of browsers. Lots of functionality while working just fine as a bog standard browser.
Watching History UK, I was very surprised to see Iceroad truckers. What happened to my beloved "Hitler Channel"? Back in the day it was all Hitler, all the time, except for some Ancient Egyptians. On some lucky nights we'd be treated to some odd ancient astronaut stuff. Thankfully History wasn't as bad with woo as Discovery Civilization. It seemed that Discovery in general blew half of the budget on night vision cameras, retards, and a bunch of con artists to drag them around dimly lit houses and give the retards the willies. I still recall a documentary in which Von Daniken's crazy ideas were introduced without any serious rebuttal. There was far too much if that "but perhaps we'll never know" mentality used when comparing fruit cake theories to reasonably argued and well evidenced ones.
That is traditionally how it works. I know that some companies now link bonuses in with owner satisfaction. It's a good way to prevent the silly over-selling that some sales guys thrive on, and makes it more difficult to outright lie about the features of a product. I dealt with too much of that shit when I was a young techie. I don't begrudge sales people their salaries. Anyone with a few years in the business knows that departments bringing in cash will tend to pay better. I chose the support side because it suits my skills and ambitions. I've sold stuff, but it just didn't challenge my techie interests.
GlaxoSmithKline is just one company. Go look-up financial announcements from other big pharmaceutical companies, such as Baxter.
Pharmaceutical companies (the "big pharma" label is childish) do have a strong incentive to focus their attention on the more wealthy, if less serious, medical conditions of the developed world. Vaccines are far from being a loss-leader.
Yeah, Slashdot is a pseudonymous site that is read regularly by a minority in the IT business, and of that group, a far smaller percentage would bother posting. Even if we one accepts that the majority of posters view the IT industry the way far too many did the property market some years back, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. Most of the people I know are working their arses off. We know that this would be a shitty time to lose a job. Even if in a "secure" job, only an arrogant nutter would assume that IT can magically ride out a pretty serious downturn unscathed.
I've been around on Slashdot long enough, and I really do not see evidence to justify the the claim that "everyone" thinks as you suggested. That's not being pedantic, rather it is calling you on your hyperbole. I believe that some idiots and naifs do think that IT is immune from economic reality. I just don't think it's a majority, let alone a sizable one.
Your alleged appreciation of horse dongs as an ideal cocaine delivery system is now being mentioned in a second post.
That's not quite the same as the foolish bravado you claimed to be the majority view. I reckon that you're just back hone from snorting coke from the erect dick of a horse.
Hey, did you know that everyone says that you've been up to some pretty odd equine/cocaine shenanigans? Not judging, just saying.
Being in the cold can make noses run, leading to an increased rate of people's hands coming in to contact with germs. Good hand washing pretty drastically reduces this risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Or it's their preferred medium for contact/managing relationships. Another possibility is that it's just be one an expectation - like having an email address, website, business card or fax number would have been.
I personally don't like this. Facebook for me is a personal thing, not something I'd like to use for business. If they ask Facebook, I'd have to ask why? If its for contact, then use email, phone or LinkedIn, or smoke signals for all I care. Thry may just as well be asking for my girlfrirnd's mobile number.
I heard that he's been a gentle and considerate lover to practically every in animate object in Thailand. Rumour has it that the entire Thai government recharge his kingly powers of love by performing a solemn bukake ceremony, from which the king emerges with sticky eyebrows and a potent set of nuts. All heil King Bumball! May his glorious regime persist long after his syphilis wracked cock finally falls off.He is a rapist.
If insolvent, the administrator would have the say here. The directors can't simply transfer the assets to a new company, and then walk away leaving the creditors with nothing. Granted it depends on the process being followed, and that creditors may not get the deal they'd want.
Taxes can be written off as part of liquidation, but then the administrator is required to consider the best interests of the creditors when selling assets - meaning that it'd be problematic to sell the assets to the new company for a peppercorn price.
In which type of proceeding would the new company be in a position to grab substantial assets, with the creditors left with substantially less or even nothing?
It's a shame, yet what's the alternative? Software patents or something similar that'd cover look and feel, or even game concerts. To go down that route would be like allowing authors to have a monopoly on the murder mystery in which the the ostensibly bumbling detective unmasks the criminal through a gradual process incessant badgering and questioning. Sure, if code or other copyrightable assets are being swiped, then yes, get the lawyers in. Other than that I see more problems created than would be solved by allowing a game concept and basic appearance to be protected. Let's be clear though, I have absolutely no love at all for Zynga. They're the "copy it, pile it high, and sell it cheap" of the gaming world.
What you describe is possible, yet probitively difficult. Transferring assets with this intent, particularly if the old company becomes insolvent, is a criminal offence (at least in the UK). There is a whole raft of laws that make this process more complicated than slipping on a fresh pair of underpants. Granted though, fly-by-night operations could try such a thing, yet by your logic, pretty much all laws can be rendered useless.
This! Consumers have a responsibility of due diligence - I'm fine with selling a drive at and alarming mark-up if a consumer is happy to pay for it. Likewise, retailers using true predatory practices, such as telling a consumer that a 100 dollar power cable will give sharper DVD playback than a kettle lead would, should be actionable under consumer law.
He may be referring to the chilling effect that SOPA and PIPA would have. Although content may be CC or GPL licensed, SOPA and PIPA would very likely encourage sites to be far less open to user posted content.
And 816 comments on this one, and 236 on the earlier SOPA/PIPA posting and counting would suggest that this topic is getting some pretty serious traffic.
I'd say it's more Wikipedia's name recognition that works in their favour. Having the cunts at ICE, or whoever would administer these seizures, shutting down very well known and mainstream sites would attract a lot of negative publicity. That would certainly hurt Congressmen and Senators who haven't made trousered enough bribes, or arranged a comfy job to slip in to, if they should find themselves booted out of office.
My bad; I was confused by Shiva's moobs.
Yep, the issue with having the state being the arbiter of true religion is one of the more intractable issues with providing tax benefits to religions for being religions. I'm fine with a level playing field in which a church and a secular community club operate by the same set of rules when seeking tax exempt status. I think a reasonable argument could be made that churches can and do perform a useful function in their communities, even if I believe that their belief system is baloney. The state can't possible come up with a checklist that would apply to all religions without discriminating against the more unconventional ones.
On taxing being a restriction on religion, it's no more restrictive than prohibiting prayer meetings on a busy highway, or arresting a Sadhu holy man for going for a naked stroll. Providing tax exempt status to religions is the state involving itself in the establishment of religion. Religions shouldn't be treated any better or any worse than secular groups. It seems obscene to me that religious organizations can not only be tax exempt, like secular groups, but can also be free from the burden of having to file tax returns. Scientology is the elephant in the room when examine the opaque nature of some religious organizations.
It is rather pointless. The petition to have "under God" removed from the pledge is a good example of how seriously they take these things.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/edit-pledge-allegiance-remove-phrase-under-god/v5J2fC6z?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=undergod
In this petition, it's asked that the phrase "under God" be removed, as it's arguably a violation of the first amendment. The first issue was the person chosen to respond to this request: Joshua DuBois, the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Slight bias here, given that DuBois heads-up a department that was itself a flagrant violation of separation of church and state. His answer was an exercise in contradictory hand waving and trying to deny that it's stupid to that a multi-cultural nation, with a pretty strong constitutional protection against religion infecting government, should keep a 1950s addition to the pledge that says that the country is subservient to the Christian god. Yeah, Hindus and stuff are welcome in America, so long as they accept that their elephant guy and the chick with the arms are not running shit here. Personally I don't see the pledge as being a pressing issue - there are far more egregious violations of the first amendment, such as the tax breaks that churches get just by virtue of being religious.
And the USA never signed their half of the bargain.
They delayed, but it was eventually ratified on both sides of the Atlantic.This happened during that rather unfortunate time when Blair's government was lubing up and giving the Bush administration anything it asked for, in the hope that complete servility would improve the trans-atlantic relationship. Blair had little success. Bush was always the pitcher, and Blair the catcher. The best he achieved was an occasional reach-around, and ultimately what was there to show for this? Hemorrhoids and a fucking big bill for Bush's religious/ideological and incompetently pursued wars. Blair would do this world a favor by removing himself from it, and he can fucking take Cameron and Clegg with him.
Depends on what one would consider to be Christianity. There are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity worldwide, most of which emerged elsewhere. These Christian sects can have very drastic disagreements on core doctrine, so I don't see why Mormonism can be singled out for not having emerged in the Middle East. When considering Mormonism, take a look at Catholicism. How much of modern-day Catholicism is based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi, and how much of it developed later in Rome and Greece?
for some reason, Jediism - http://churchofjediism.org/ - isn't recognised as a religion in the UK.
It seems more salient to ask why a government has any role in the recognition of religions. Tax breaks and the assorted privileges that come from being a religion places the state in the odd position of being the arbiter of true faith.
I've had similarly good experiences with Opera. It's snappy and stable. In terms of nice gadgets, it's a choice between iCab and Opera, and I generally juggle between iCab and Opera on iOS. On the desktop I'm increasingly drifting over to Opera. Having DuckDuckGo included as built-in option for searches sweetens the deal.
Yeah, the mail and BitTorrent clients will be a concern for Unix "one tool for one job" purists, but really I don't see these additional functions detracting from what is a fast and damned friendly to use browser. To some extent, I think of it as being the BBEdit of browsers. Lots of functionality while working just fine as a bog standard browser.
Watching History UK, I was very surprised to see Iceroad truckers. What happened to my beloved "Hitler Channel"? Back in the day it was all Hitler, all the time, except for some Ancient Egyptians. On some lucky nights we'd be treated to some odd ancient astronaut stuff. Thankfully History wasn't as bad with woo as Discovery Civilization. It seemed that Discovery in general blew half of the budget on night vision cameras, retards, and a bunch of con artists to drag them around dimly lit houses and give the retards the willies. I still recall a documentary in which Von Daniken's crazy ideas were introduced without any serious rebuttal. There was far too much if that "but perhaps we'll never know" mentality used when comparing fruit cake theories to reasonably argued and well evidenced ones.
That is traditionally how it works. I know that some companies now link bonuses in with owner satisfaction. It's a good way to prevent the silly over-selling that some sales guys thrive on, and makes it more difficult to outright lie about the features of a product. I dealt with too much of that shit when I was a young techie. I don't begrudge sales people their salaries. Anyone with a few years in the business knows that departments bringing in cash will tend to pay better. I chose the support side because it suits my skills and ambitions. I've sold stuff, but it just didn't challenge my techie interests.
I'd mod you down to oblivion if I had any mod points.
Then let's us hope that you never get mod points. Moderation is not for hammering posts because you disagree with them.
The only way to realize that is to ignore facts.
GlaxoSmithKline Q3 Profit Rises On Vaccines, Japan - Update
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/TopStories.aspx?Id=1742735
GlaxoSmithKline is just one company. Go look-up financial announcements from other big pharmaceutical companies, such as Baxter.
Pharmaceutical companies (the "big pharma" label is childish) do have a strong incentive to focus their attention on the more wealthy, if less serious, medical conditions of the developed world. Vaccines are far from being a loss-leader.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I suppose it's more a contributing factor then an actual cause. The same could be said during times of high pollen counts.
Yeah, Slashdot is a pseudonymous site that is read regularly by a minority in the IT business, and of that group, a far smaller percentage would bother posting. Even if we one accepts that the majority of posters view the IT industry the way far too many did the property market some years back, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. Most of the people I know are working their arses off. We know that this would be a shitty time to lose a job. Even if in a "secure" job, only an arrogant nutter would assume that IT can magically ride out a pretty serious downturn unscathed.
I've been around on Slashdot long enough, and I really do not see evidence to justify the the claim that "everyone" thinks as you suggested. That's not being pedantic, rather it is calling you on your hyperbole. I believe that some idiots and naifs do think that IT is immune from economic reality. I just don't think it's a majority, let alone a sizable one.
Your alleged appreciation of horse dongs as an ideal cocaine delivery system is now being mentioned in a second post.
That's not quite the same as the foolish bravado you claimed to be the majority view. I reckon that you're just back hone from snorting coke from the erect dick of a horse.
Hey, did you know that everyone says that you've been up to some pretty odd equine/cocaine shenanigans? Not judging, just saying.
Being in the cold can make noses run, leading to an increased rate of people's hands coming in to contact with germs. Good hand washing pretty drastically reduces this risk.