Basically, you said what I was thinking. Non-US investors aren't covered by the SEC, so the media coverage won't affect the legality of soliciting foreign investors. The media coverage would, however, have led to problems with fair disclosure for investors in the US.
Goldman Sachs didn't get a "bailout". They got a loan, and paid back the money, plus interest. A "bailout" implies they outright keep the money (and not in exchange for stock; that's an investment, like what happened in GM's case), or get a 0 interest loan from the Government, which wasn't the case with GS, or nearly any of the other institutions that got help. "Bailout" is a term popularized by the media during the past couple years, but it was never a proper bailout.
Also, the loan to GS came from the Federal Reserve, with the Government's backing - you know, the way all the operations the Federal Reserve has ever been involved with have been conducted.
Saying that the Fed isn't a bank is total bullshit, and shows you really have no clue what you're talking about. It is literally there to serve the function of "central bank of the United States", among others.
In other words, the Fed is literally the biggest bank in the United States, serving the same function to private banks and financial institutions (like GS) as those institutions serve to other companies and individuals.
No, they're saying they won't sell to US investors because of legal issues arising from the massive amounts of media coverage involved with their own investment in Facebook.
You "give someone the finger" in that case; nothing vague about that. The phrase used earlier is stupidly vague (hardly any context to pull meaning from) and I've never used it heard in conversation before (not once), and thus can be interpreted a multitude of ways IMO.
Then buy a Jitterbug. I mean, you don't need bluetooth, you don't need games, you don't need a calendar, you don't need internet access, you don't need an alarm.
I personally want the high end phone that can do more than my computer did 10 years ago, and two cores with the potential to disable one is the obvious way to go for that goal of increased mobile computing power - which is the entire point of this conversation.
Because we have five digits, regardless as to how many need to be used to create a gesture. Language can be ambiguous, as well; a one finger gesture exists (just extend the middle finger), but the same gesture can be described as a four finger gesture ("fingers don't include thumbs") or a five finger gesture ("fingers do include thumbs") without the description being fundamentally flawed.
I did a search on Google for "FDA list of Oxycodone plants", and came up with nothing. Since it's not in the first page of results under that search, you should provide a source or not make the claim.
The locations of pharmaceutical manufacturers usually aren't public, though. Also, pharmacies choose to advertise themselves; the state never gives out a listing of all pharmacies inside of the state.
Banks have security measures that are highly effective and widely used. A small-scale grow operation implementing the level of security used at the average bank would have no funds with which to do anything else.
You have to remember, these are very small scale operations. An average bank is dealing with literally thousands of times more revenue than these operations, and doing so with a limited footprint compared to a grow operation, which makes it easier to protect with bulletproof acrylic, cameras, a security guard, and a gigantic 2-foot-thick vault with a tiny amount of floor space for holding 99% of the cash and valuables. You can't grow this stuff inside of a vault like that - otherwise you're looking at a warehouse sized, multi-billion-dollar vault, with the potential to produce maybe a million or two in income yearly.
By the way, banks don't have their information published by the state, as you're insinuating they do. They choose to publicize it themselves (for obvious reasons). They can keep their location confidential if they wish.
Then you should also wait for a serious contender on AT&T. The Captivate is the first phone that could even possibly qualify as being in the same ballpark as the iPhone on AT&T, but it isn't quite 100% there - wait for something that can be considered on an equal or better level and has some marketing muscle put behind it (the Captivate was by far under marketed), like the other carriers all have (Evo 4G on Sprint, Droid family on Verizon, G2 and myTouch on TMobile).
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, you said what I was thinking. Non-US investors aren't covered by the SEC, so the media coverage won't affect the legality of soliciting foreign investors. The media coverage would, however, have led to problems with fair disclosure for investors in the US.
Goldman Sachs didn't get a "bailout". They got a loan, and paid back the money, plus interest. A "bailout" implies they outright keep the money (and not in exchange for stock; that's an investment, like what happened in GM's case), or get a 0 interest loan from the Government, which wasn't the case with GS, or nearly any of the other institutions that got help. "Bailout" is a term popularized by the media during the past couple years, but it was never a proper bailout.
Also, the loan to GS came from the Federal Reserve, with the Government's backing - you know, the way all the operations the Federal Reserve has ever been involved with have been conducted.
Saying that the Fed isn't a bank is total bullshit, and shows you really have no clue what you're talking about. It is literally there to serve the function of "central bank of the United States", among others.
In other words, the Fed is literally the biggest bank in the United States, serving the same function to private banks and financial institutions (like GS) as those institutions serve to other companies and individuals.
Did the "plus interest" part of my post confuse you, or was it the implied (interest on a loan from the Fed = profit) that you missed?
Jeez, WTF is with all you guys and the "Why don't they pay back their loans" bit? GS paid back their loans plus interest a while ago already.
No, they're saying they won't sell to US investors because of legal issues arising from the massive amounts of media coverage involved with their own investment in Facebook.
Maybe some insurance policies won't pay, but police will still investigate and arrest anyone caught with some of your stuff.
I don't think he's doing the bird with wings flapping, that's a 10 finger gesture! :-D
You "give someone the finger" in that case; nothing vague about that. The phrase used earlier is stupidly vague (hardly any context to pull meaning from) and I've never used it heard in conversation before (not once), and thus can be interpreted a multitude of ways IMO.
Then buy a Jitterbug. I mean, you don't need bluetooth, you don't need games, you don't need a calendar, you don't need internet access, you don't need an alarm.
I personally want the high end phone that can do more than my computer did 10 years ago, and two cores with the potential to disable one is the obvious way to go for that goal of increased mobile computing power - which is the entire point of this conversation.
If it's a core that can be turned on and off, the second core would be very useful and not kill battery life at all.
Because we have five digits, regardless as to how many need to be used to create a gesture. Language can be ambiguous, as well; a one finger gesture exists (just extend the middle finger), but the same gesture can be described as a four finger gesture ("fingers don't include thumbs") or a five finger gesture ("fingers do include thumbs") without the description being fundamentally flawed.
Just saying, the single finger salute doesn't work without the cooperation of the other 4 fingers.
You need to pull four of your fingers down, so the gesture does involve all five fingers.
...or the "The Clothing Center".
The difference with a commercial is that you know who paid the random dude to tell you to do so.
I think he's asking you to elaborate on the exact chain of events that would lead from this incident to WW3.
I did a search on Google for "FDA list of Oxycodone plants", and came up with nothing. Since it's not in the first page of results under that search, you should provide a source or not make the claim.
Then post a link to where this information is made publicly available, instead of just claiming it's true.
The same precautions as the plants the manufacture oxycodone includes: the state not divulging their location, and a fenced off area.
The locations of pharmaceutical manufacturers usually aren't public, though. Also, pharmacies choose to advertise themselves; the state never gives out a listing of all pharmacies inside of the state.
Banks have security measures that are highly effective and widely used. A small-scale grow operation implementing the level of security used at the average bank would have no funds with which to do anything else.
You have to remember, these are very small scale operations. An average bank is dealing with literally thousands of times more revenue than these operations, and doing so with a limited footprint compared to a grow operation, which makes it easier to protect with bulletproof acrylic, cameras, a security guard, and a gigantic 2-foot-thick vault with a tiny amount of floor space for holding 99% of the cash and valuables. You can't grow this stuff inside of a vault like that - otherwise you're looking at a warehouse sized, multi-billion-dollar vault, with the potential to produce maybe a million or two in income yearly.
By the way, banks don't have their information published by the state, as you're insinuating they do. They choose to publicize it themselves (for obvious reasons). They can keep their location confidential if they wish.
That's part of the bullshit system we have of "National Security Letters".
Then you should also wait for a serious contender on AT&T. The Captivate is the first phone that could even possibly qualify as being in the same ballpark as the iPhone on AT&T, but it isn't quite 100% there - wait for something that can be considered on an equal or better level and has some marketing muscle put behind it (the Captivate was by far under marketed), like the other carriers all have (Evo 4G on Sprint, Droid family on Verizon, G2 and myTouch on TMobile).
But it also serves to help keep the people who would be reading this stuff ignorant as to the methods used, possible flaws in the studies, etc.