We don't use 'aluminum' or 'aluminium' anymore. They new Unified English® spelling is 'aluminininium'.

How is a 1.5% bump in profit for Cisco or 2% for UPS a rounding error? Most CFOs would kill to find an extra 1.5%, or put another way it's one fewer round of layoffs to meet Wallstreet's latest estimate.

Cost of capital for well rated companies is around 4.25%, at most it will add a few months to the roi if you're looking at 6-7 years otherwise.

It is not cool and hip.
The real answer is that Perl can be hard to maintain unless you enforce strict programing standards and it is not easy to find really skilled Perl programers. A less than top notch Perl programer means problems down the road for sure.
PHP, Python, and Ruby are all popular choices. PHP probably has the biggest talent base but has many of the same problems as Perl.
Python and Ruby are easier to maintain but harder to find coders for.
 

NEWSPEAK ALERT!

No, Dan Cathy donated money to organizations that worked against redefining marriage to fit a certain political agenda.

LK

People who hear the word mayday and politics will think communist Russia- that is if they know anything about the cold war.

Willfully ignorant, I will give you. Stupid I cannot. It is a legitimate thought process to anyone who who lived through the cold war. It drives half the country's knee jerk hatred against socialism today.

they arrest him, know who he is and that he is not a threat, realise the charges are more or less for being annoying in public, put him in the holding while processing the paperwork. He asks to make a phone call, they hand him his cell phone, he makes the post while being bored.

They likely never would have allowed it. Knowing cops, they probably didn't know they were allowing it either.

That is, I have no idea how true this would be. It's just a possible scenario to how they could have allowed it without knowing they allowed it. The part that has me is, if it was posted as him, they would have had to get his user name and password else it would have showed as someone else posting it. That's possible with the crap they have to suck info from phones, but it makes the story a little more hard to digest. Of course they could have made him log in and post it. But then Facebook would have an IP set for the police department if you could ever get to the logs.

Guess they're not prepared to buy the next thing the internet tells them to. For shame.

Probably by putting his head in the way of the cop's fist.

This probably happens in real life. I got slammed against a brick wall when I was 23 or so by a cop for asking him what he just said to me as I was putting some things into the trunk of a car. I filed a complaint and he wrote in his statement that he put his hands up to signal me to stop approaching and I stumbled into them and fell back against the wall a few times.

It didn't matter that it was right after a bachelor party and there were about 4 video cameras that captured it all and the cop was obviously lying (long before cell phones had cameras in them). I was charged with obstructing justice, assaulting a police officer, disturbing the peace, in control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and destruction of public property (he siad he tore his shirt slamming me into the wall). Luckily, he was going through a bitter divorce and my lawyer knew it. He said loudly, "we talked with his wife, she said he is a habitual liar and talks a lot about the people he screws over by claiming shit that never happened and is willing to testify for us". This was in the hall waiting for the pretrial conference to start. About 20 minutes later, the prosecutor came out and offered a deal with pleading to disorderly conduct and everything else dropped. My lawyer took it.

- yes, putting the religion of socialism before the Constitution is what has destroyed America.

Constitutionally US Congress has no authority to dictate anything to business or individuals unless it is expressly stated in Article 1 Section 8. The actual problem is that SCOTUS has not struck down almost all laws that ever came out of Congress as it should have as unconstitutional, but instead it allowed wider and wider oppression via usurpation of powers by the government and destruction of the individual freedoms.

The reality is that the religious argument shouldn't matter, because the only true argument here is the argument of freedom. Individuals must not be coerced by governments, they must not be forced by governments to accept compensation for their work from their employer in a way that government sees fit (any form of insurance or maternity leave or paid vacation for example) in lieu of what the individual and the business agree to on their own accord. Individual may want to be paid in gold for example and nothing else and may sign a contract with the employer to that effect and government doesn't (Constitutionally) have the authority to overwrite this contract.

I'm not drawing you a picture. If they are so similar that you just had to spend a second entire post describing the differences, my point still stands- people will confuse the one with the other and ignore it until it gets going and then without looking into it, fight against it.

Why do I know this? Because it happens all the time. It's like when John Stewart explained that a SOFA agreement being talked about with Iraq was an agreement on how long you can crash on somebody's couch before having to pay rent. the joke only worked because it was similar but different and you knew there would be a couple of people going "right on brother" until he explained the rest of the story.

Of course it is, for people of limited means. Which applies to most of Hobby Lobby's workers, since they don't get paid much.

The average full time non salary worker at hobby lobby makes $14 an hour. I wouldn't exactly call that not much. But you not wanting to sacrifice something to pay for a health service does not mean someone who refuses to pay for it is telling you what health care services you can have.

Bullshit:
1) Hobby Lobby was fine with covering these meds before it was mandatory

I need a cite before I will believe this. Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 methods covered by the Obama care mandate and only went to court on 4 of them. As far as anyone has said, they will still provide coverage for those 16 contraception devices.

2) They're invested in the pharmaceutical companies selling said meds

Not relevant but show me a creditable link and it needs to be one concerning the 4 contraception they took issue with.

3) All their products come from China with it's mandatory abortions

Not relevant again. Or do you think you should go to prison for something your father or brother did? They don't seem to be telling others how to live, just objecting to others telling them to ignore their faith and provide a couple specific things.

4) Arguing you have the right to to mess around with other people's lives, cuz religion, is always bullshit, whether it's contraceptives, gay rights, or segregation.

No one is arguing to mess around with other people's lives except for the government. They are saying you have to provide X even if it is against your religion and hobby lobby said no I don't and a court agreed with them. That is the facts that it boils down to if you remove all the spin.

While having to double pay for it, since health insurance is part of your compensation. Hobby Lobby is still happy to cover Viagra and vasectomies, though.

You wouldn't be double paying for it. You simply wouldn't be compensated for it the first time. You see, any benefit has to be payed before it can be counted as compensation. In this case, hobby lobby is paying everything it needs to except for the 4 contraception ways. Therefore, your compensation would be base pay plus benefits that do not include abortion coverage.

But I would watch all this compensation arguments before the IRS gets the idea that it is taxable income. You could make that argument so well that next thing you know, you will be paying taxes on your medical benefits.

Maybe you could stop being a dumbass for five seconds. Under the same logic in this ruling, if your company is owned by Jehovah's Witnesses, they could deny you coverage for blood transfusions. Or if you work for a Scientologist, any kind of psychiatric medication. Of course, SCOTUS tied themselves into pretzels to avoid that exact sort of outcome, which means they're favoring one religious sect over another, which means this is all buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit.

lol.. you are funny. So if SCOTUS tied this up, then your first two premises are false. IF they are not false, then your third premise is. But none the less, I think you already knew and allowed for that.

Well, here is the problem. So what if they can do that? IT doesn't prevent those people subjected to the loss of transfusions or psychiatric medication from gaining coverage in some other way. Obama already made the insurance companies cover without cost to the charity, the contraception portions of the HHS mandate for charities of religious nature who object. So even though the religious charities do not pay for it, even though the policy they provide does not list it, the fact that someone there has insurance also gives them the option to get a separate free policy covering all of the HHS mandate that the charity objects to. There is no reason why it could not be done in the hobby lobby case or a Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologist. The fact of the matter is that the majority of companies in a position that this could happen with are too small to be included in the employer coverage mandate anyways. This means their employees would be getting coverage outside of the employer either through a spouse or one of the market places and there may even be a subsidy for them.

You act like the sky is falling when all you did was knock you glass off the table.