I have no problem with Google Analytics. Every permutation I have found of their various domain names are listed in my /etc/hosts as 0.0.0.0 - problem solved.

I get that. But the nice thing about a SAQ, is you could sit them down, go through all the questions, figure out the answers, and just make them sign it.

Compliance with training wheels. :-)

Nice.

I'm in charge of PCI Compliance where I work, so I totally feel your pain.

Hopefully their volume is low enough that they can just do a SAQ?

Only in the US because the right is so far to the right already, that a just barely right of center opposition is considered "left".

I have, in fact, paid for my date's food. At no time was that ever an explicit or implicit deal for sex. I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me, too.

So.... I think you could have just stopped at "I can't imagine committing to adult services", ya know? I've never had to pay for it, and never will. How about you? :-)

He must have told her he had a U.S. Open marriage. She called him a PGA-Hole. And of course, you know what the difference is between an Escalade and a golf ball - Tiger can drive a golf ball more than 100 yards. Did you see him at the last major? He kept shanking the ball. Gotta watch out for those shankers.

You keep ignoring my point, so I will quit responding to something I have already responded to.

The likelihood of this being overturned is very, very low. See my previous arguments about Row and Miranda. Simply asserting that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is a subordinate clause is not an answer, it's repetition. You have not addressed my point, at all. Good day, sir.

And yet, they haven't overturned Roe, or really weakened any important liberal decisions, others than Miranda. Miranda by the way, was a really good example of activism in and of itself.

I'm for a lack of activism on both sides, personally. I'm a centrist, myself. It would really be nice to see a centrist court for once. We've never had one of those.

And yet, it's already been ruled on. Look - I'm not a huge fan of people walking around with guns, but what's the point of beating this particular drum? The SCOTUS has spoken. It is a right of the people. I don't know that I agree or not, but what *I* think doesn't matter. The SCOTUS has ruled on this.

The court has already ruled that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is NOT a subordinate clause. As such, repeating the first part isn't a requirement, is it? What's the point?

you used to hear these things on slashdot FIRST, sometimes several days ahead of the mainstream media, and now slashdot is at least a week behind. This is old, old news at this point.

Yes, the one that didn't FUCKING SUCK BALLS like you do.

GO TEAM EDWARD (JAMES OLMOS).

His first one - the second one, he built, after he lost his hand. The one in the third movie is the one he built.

Everyone add the tag, Cylons to this one. :-D