You're having a laugh. He "didn't know" he had a deferred salary? He "didn't know" he had deferred options? The only one remotely plausible is the 401(k), and given that some 90%+ of publicly listed companies have investments in their own stocks in a 401(k), it's not at all unreasonable.
You don't get a deferred salary in a blind trust. As you say, nice try with the talking points.
Probably something to do with the fact that the Congressional Research Services investigated and discovered he still had:
deferred salary, tied to earnings
retained stock options, available for exercise after he stepped down
a 401(k) account which had investments in Halliburton
and had been found that his statements that he had removed financial ties to himself and Halliburton to be "steeped in loopholes and legalese and avoidance".
Seriously? Do you think that if a foreign/hostile agent or power ever got the "First BlackBerry", they'd be so crude as to attempt a couple of passwords, have it lock, and say "aww, shit, there goes our chance"?
Get the cruise line to install a descent high-speed internet antenna. Cost for a super-fancy rig, (specifically, a 2.4meter C-band steerable stabilized antanna) installed, is about $150,000, and Bandwidth and service charges are not cheap. However, this is one heck of a lot cheaper than the setup they currently have (which sounds like old-fashioned Inmarsat.)
ROFLMAO.
"So, hi guys, this semester at sea thing. Sounds all cool and that... but I am a net addict. So how about you shlepp out a hundred and fifty grand and help a brother out?"
And agreed on HSAs. The unfortunate reality is that the carrier can't dump your child born with a chronic condition for that reason without out and out admitting they're not actually following insurance 'principles', but of course they will look for any excuse to ratchet up premiums or otherwise drop you. Of course they can't "drop" you, most of the time, they'll just "not renew" you.
The issue is really "insurance". You can insure against chance-based occurrences, and though "congenital chronic condition" is a chance-based occurrence (though depending on what specific condition, chance can be anything up to and including 100 per cent), the notion of insuring against what in reality is a lifelong affliction goes against the grain of what insurance is purported to be. The carrier sees you as a net drag on their system and will do anything to avoid taking you, despite the principle that they've already factored in the cost of having you in their actuarial work, estimating chance, etc, preponderance of conditions across a given populace.
Supposedly 835, and 837, were ways to standardize documentation. But, like you, we have to deal with things per provider, because everyone does it "differently". Bleh. (I work for a company that writes claims management and adjudication software for many large providers.)
I'm up in Redmond and am witness to Microsoft laying off 15,000 people, just imagine how other companies are handling the bad times...
You're what? MSFT employs 80,000 people worldwide. If you're looking at the rumors being posted, most layoffs will occur in EMEA, not the US, and are slated to not be anywhere near 15,000 employees, but rather at most, 15% of MSN staff.
Experience with the exact Cisco IOS level that the company currently uses would be even better.
To a degree, but if you think the HR drone is going to have any idea what version of Cisco IOS you're using, you're laughing. Even if you tell him, I'd still place even money on it never being considered.
So you know enough about Exchange to know the Registry Key for configuring a max recipient count, but not enough to think that they were using DLs, which count as one recipient?
Very true. However, what we offer is even worse. It's "Don't do it, or we'll punish you with punitative actions, embargoes, tariffs and subsidies for our farmers competing against you". Not a method that anyone will appreciate being on the receiving end of.
In Europe, there are plenty of reports showing that untracable, stolen or smuggled meat is most highly prevalent in immigrant kebab stores.
How does one trace untraceable meat to 'immigrant kebab stores'?
This kinda sounds a bit more like xenophobia.
McDonalds in Australia got bit a few years ago - all their Big Macs had wrappers, "100% Australian Beef". Funny thing was that "100% Australian Beef" wasn't the claim being made (nor was it the case), it was (haha) the name of the supplier.
Well, the electricity and gas companies in my state offers a program where monthly bills are averaged out for the whole year eliminating price spikes during certain seasons, especially the winter. The rationale is that it makes things more manageable in those months of heavier usage. As far as I know, however, there are no refunds for overpayment. But there may very well be; I haven't tried it.
When I was renting an energy-inefficient turn of the century house in Washington last year (with those horrible electric wall heaters), I went with this. You're told that the last bill of the month will be for whatever amount is needed to bring you back to level. I think the previous bill gave you some warning if that amount was higher than the average you'd been paying all year.
Anecdote, blah blah. My wife owns an iPhone 3G. I own a Nokia N95. Looking at call count and duration stats, we're on about the same time. I know she's recharging more often than me. Battery life estimates are widely varied. Some people like to claim/believe "But Apple actually gives honest numbers and your usage may actually exceed!" - that's called the RDF at work.
If my signature shows up on something and has those extra marks on it, I have at least a little better leverage to make the case that my signature was never attached to any physical agreement, and there's no way to prove that the terms with my signature were the same as the terms to which I agreed. Those marks mean they never had a physical signature attached to a document, and thus it's wholly unenforceable.
I think it's cute and sweet that you believe it's wholly unenforceable because you say you only make those marks when you sign a pin pad, not a physical document. Because you'd never have any reason you might want to escape from a contract without penalty of your own accord, right?
Apropos of anything else, I'd also be highly surprised if your cardholder agreement, that you signed physically, didn't make specific representations about a signature attained via a digital signature pad being a binding signature on your part.
Jobs created two brand new successful companies (NeXT and Pixar) while he was away.
People like Ed Catmull, and oh, George Lucas, might take issue with the claim that Jobs created Pixar, given that Pixar was a spin off of Lucasfilm's CG division.
She shot, with her assistant, over 8000 digitals in RAW and, I believe, she said 20 rolls of film. It was a long ceremony, and she shot all day before and then took pictures through dinner afterward. But 2000 shots and that few cards still sounds low to me.
9,000 shots in say 12 hours is a photograph every 9 seconds, even for 2 photographers. Presuming her assistant spent half the time assisting, rather than shooting, and factoring in travel from the preparation location to the ceremony, the ceremony to a formal shot location, to the reception, you're probably looking at a photograph closer to every 3 seconds for 12 hours for the entire day.
At some point, quantity overtakes quality. You need multiple shots of portraits to make sure you don't get blinking, and so you do get 'that moment'.
There are typically two schools of wedding photography. One, charge a low upfront fee, and make money on selling prints, and two, charge a high upfront fee, and make less money on the prints. I tend to go for the latter - the first seems to be naturally steered towards a mindset of "will this sell"? Those cute, odd, eccentric and esoteric shots happen far less, because the photographer isn't going to make money off them. The latter, you're providing a creative experience.
At what point, too, does it become fish in a barrel? Stand there firing your shutter every three seconds rarely leads to well composed, nicely exposed, well-framed, suitably aperture adjusted and focused shots for all 9,000 photographs taken. Shoot in Program mode, maybe. You'll get many great shots, but of those 9,000 shots, of which 8,000+ of which will be "thrown away" before the client even sees them (and even for the best of photographers, in such a situation, 2,000+ will probably be completely unusable due to focus or other 'technical issues', and another 2,000+ due to someone blinking, someone getting in frame, etc), how many really "added value" to the capturing of the moment, and how many were realistically a high red, stop motion video capture of the day?
Or would you like your photographer to spend time walking around, finding that perfect spot to shoot you from, or to sneak up to a balcony and capture an intimate moment of you and your new bride, completely lost in each other, unaware of anything, let alone the camera? If you're firing off that shot every 3 seconds, then it's a lot harder to find that. Add to that, 20mb raw files, you have 160gb of raw data to manage. 10 8 gig cards per photographer. I'm not saying she didn't shoot all that, I'm just talking about the realm (and I admit, I'm biased) of "was she searching for genuinely creative capturing of moments" or "was she shooting the shit out of everything, and digging through the haystack"?
I enjoy the fun of a wedding - it's usually an enjoyable event, and I've only had a couple of Bridezillas (and even then, maybe I've got lucky - most of mine seemed mainly to be overly stressed, and calmed down as they saw that things were capable of running themselves without the bride functioning as an orchestra conductor).
Definitely, though, I agree with you on other points - it's the photographer and the composition, and the subject that make the shot, not the camera. Some of my more fun photography experiences: sitting in an arena (though still with a 400mm lens) shooting ren faire horseback jousting, being up close and shooting a police dog demonstration from a few feet away as it did takedowns, lying on my stomach on an ice rink in a Broadway theater doing promo shots for a "Nutcracker On Ice" show, with an Olympic ice skater skating up to me and flying over my head, and (as soon as the weather clears) doing some work for a local sanctuary shooting their 6 month old Canadian Lynx.
Good point. I still don't re-use the card until I "have" to... and I can get around 2,000 shots from those cards, so it's rare that I'd need to, so at that point I've got two copies (then when I get home it goes to a dedicated 500GB drive for photography only, and that night to a backup drive.
Worst case scenario, the portable is at least in a more controlled environment (not going with me all over the place, kneeling, standing in water, whatever), and hard drive data recovery is less of a black art than CF data recovery.
And yet of the dozens of books I have on wedding photography, my chosen photographic field, not a single one has ever recommended that you shoot an entire event on a single card, especially a two day event. Tell me, Photography 101, whatcha gonna do if your single card / camera falls in the water? Or you get a nice dose of static? Or some kid running around knocks your camera tripod over?
LOL. "The dictionary (one which is well known for publishing every year lists of "new additions") is wrong, here's why: cause some random people on Wikipedia said so."
I have never met a person who shoots on a 1D/s, etc, on an SD card for event photography, either. Interestingly, the current price for a SanDisk Extreme III 4GB CF card is around US$36, just a bit more than would be practical or feasible for someone who keeps around 'literally hundreds' of them.
I shoot weddings on a 5D Mk II, and I use 4 8GB Extreme III cards, and an Epson "Multimedia Viewer" (portable HDD with screen and CF slot, that allows you to very quickly transfer from CF to HDD so you can re-use the card).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get a deferred salary in a blind trust. As you say, nice try with the talking points.
and had been found that his statements that he had removed financial ties to himself and Halliburton to be "steeped in loopholes and legalese and avoidance".
You were saying?
Seriously? Do you think that if a foreign/hostile agent or power ever got the "First BlackBerry", they'd be so crude as to attempt a couple of passwords, have it lock, and say "aww, shit, there goes our chance"?
ROFLMAO.
"So, hi guys, this semester at sea thing. Sounds all cool and that... but I am a net addict. So how about you shlepp out a hundred and fifty grand and help a brother out?"
Meet you at odd hours?!? Hahaha!
Try finding a dentist in Washington state that's even open on a
, Saturday or Sunday! They exist, but are very few, and very far between, and (for some strange reason) very busy!
Or for that matter, a doctor (not a doc-in-a-box), as above.
Yup. "Mortgages are simultaneous at both their most affordable and least available in a very long time."
And agreed on HSAs. The unfortunate reality is that the carrier can't dump your child born with a chronic condition for that reason without out and out admitting they're not actually following insurance 'principles', but of course they will look for any excuse to ratchet up premiums or otherwise drop you. Of course they can't "drop" you, most of the time, they'll just "not renew" you.
The issue is really "insurance". You can insure against chance-based occurrences, and though "congenital chronic condition" is a chance-based occurrence (though depending on what specific condition, chance can be anything up to and including 100 per cent), the notion of insuring against what in reality is a lifelong affliction goes against the grain of what insurance is purported to be. The carrier sees you as a net drag on their system and will do anything to avoid taking you, despite the principle that they've already factored in the cost of having you in their actuarial work, estimating chance, etc, preponderance of conditions across a given populace.
It's all broken on so many levels.
Supposedly 835, and 837, were ways to standardize documentation. But, like you, we have to deal with things per provider, because everyone does it "differently". Bleh. (I work for a company that writes claims management and adjudication software for many large providers.)
You're what? MSFT employs 80,000 people worldwide. If you're looking at the rumors being posted, most layoffs will occur in EMEA, not the US, and are slated to not be anywhere near 15,000 employees, but rather at most, 15% of MSN staff.
To a degree, but if you think the HR drone is going to have any idea what version of Cisco IOS you're using, you're laughing. Even if you tell him, I'd still place even money on it never being considered.
So you know enough about Exchange to know the Registry Key for configuring a max recipient count, but not enough to think that they were using DLs, which count as one recipient?
Hahahaha! That's cute, that you think the taxpayer isn't subsidizing your education because you're at a private university.
Very true. However, what we offer is even worse. It's "Don't do it, or we'll punish you with punitative actions, embargoes, tariffs and subsidies for our farmers competing against you". Not a method that anyone will appreciate being on the receiving end of.
How does one trace untraceable meat to 'immigrant kebab stores'?
This kinda sounds a bit more like xenophobia.
McDonalds in Australia got bit a few years ago - all their Big Macs had wrappers, "100% Australian Beef". Funny thing was that "100% Australian Beef" wasn't the claim being made (nor was it the case), it was (haha) the name of the supplier.
When I was renting an energy-inefficient turn of the century house in Washington last year (with those horrible electric wall heaters), I went with this. You're told that the last bill of the month will be for whatever amount is needed to bring you back to level. I think the previous bill gave you some warning if that amount was higher than the average you'd been paying all year.
Anecdote, blah blah. My wife owns an iPhone 3G. I own a Nokia N95. Looking at call count and duration stats, we're on about the same time. I know she's recharging more often than me. Battery life estimates are widely varied. Some people like to claim/believe "But Apple actually gives honest numbers and your usage may actually exceed!" - that's called the RDF at work.
I think it's cute and sweet that you believe it's wholly unenforceable because you say you only make those marks when you sign a pin pad, not a physical document. Because you'd never have any reason you might want to escape from a contract without penalty of your own accord, right?
Apropos of anything else, I'd also be highly surprised if your cardholder agreement, that you signed physically, didn't make specific representations about a signature attained via a digital signature pad being a binding signature on your part.
People like Ed Catmull, and oh, George Lucas, might take issue with the claim that Jobs created Pixar, given that Pixar was a spin off of Lucasfilm's CG division.
9,000 shots in say 12 hours is a photograph every 9 seconds, even for 2 photographers. Presuming her assistant spent half the time assisting, rather than shooting, and factoring in travel from the preparation location to the ceremony, the ceremony to a formal shot location, to the reception, you're probably looking at a photograph closer to every 3 seconds for 12 hours for the entire day.
At some point, quantity overtakes quality. You need multiple shots of portraits to make sure you don't get blinking, and so you do get 'that moment'.
There are typically two schools of wedding photography. One, charge a low upfront fee, and make money on selling prints, and two, charge a high upfront fee, and make less money on the prints. I tend to go for the latter - the first seems to be naturally steered towards a mindset of "will this sell"? Those cute, odd, eccentric and esoteric shots happen far less, because the photographer isn't going to make money off them. The latter, you're providing a creative experience.
At what point, too, does it become fish in a barrel? Stand there firing your shutter every three seconds rarely leads to well composed, nicely exposed, well-framed, suitably aperture adjusted and focused shots for all 9,000 photographs taken. Shoot in Program mode, maybe. You'll get many great shots, but of those 9,000 shots, of which 8,000+ of which will be "thrown away" before the client even sees them (and even for the best of photographers, in such a situation, 2,000+ will probably be completely unusable due to focus or other 'technical issues', and another 2,000+ due to someone blinking, someone getting in frame, etc), how many really "added value" to the capturing of the moment, and how many were realistically a high red, stop motion video capture of the day?
Or would you like your photographer to spend time walking around, finding that perfect spot to shoot you from, or to sneak up to a balcony and capture an intimate moment of you and your new bride, completely lost in each other, unaware of anything, let alone the camera? If you're firing off that shot every 3 seconds, then it's a lot harder to find that. Add to that, 20mb raw files, you have 160gb of raw data to manage. 10 8 gig cards per photographer. I'm not saying she didn't shoot all that, I'm just talking about the realm (and I admit, I'm biased) of "was she searching for genuinely creative capturing of moments" or "was she shooting the shit out of everything, and digging through the haystack"?
ROFLMAO. You -are- kidding, right? Ye gods.
Definitely, though, I agree with you on other points - it's the photographer and the composition, and the subject that make the shot, not the camera. Some of my more fun photography experiences: sitting in an arena (though still with a 400mm lens) shooting ren faire horseback jousting, being up close and shooting a police dog demonstration from a few feet away as it did takedowns, lying on my stomach on an ice rink in a Broadway theater doing promo shots for a "Nutcracker On Ice" show, with an Olympic ice skater skating up to me and flying over my head, and (as soon as the weather clears) doing some work for a local sanctuary shooting their 6 month old Canadian Lynx.
Worst case scenario, the portable is at least in a more controlled environment (not going with me all over the place, kneeling, standing in water, whatever), and hard drive data recovery is less of a black art than CF data recovery.
And yet of the dozens of books I have on wedding photography, my chosen photographic field, not a single one has ever recommended that you shoot an entire event on a single card, especially a two day event. Tell me, Photography 101, whatcha gonna do if your single card / camera falls in the water? Or you get a nice dose of static? Or some kid running around knocks your camera tripod over?
Gah.
I shoot weddings on a 5D Mk II, and I use 4 8GB Extreme III cards, and an Epson "Multimedia Viewer" (portable HDD with screen and CF slot, that allows you to very quickly transfer from CF to HDD so you can re-use the card).