|
|
Not in countries that don't let you own pump-action shotguns.
Incidentally, if you're curious why that make and model of shotgun mattered, it's in the paper. They had to factor in that shotguns don't cover a target with an even distribution of shot. In the zombie apocalypse, I think it's going to be simpler to measure the diameter of the motor of my chainsaw. It won't require any importance sampling for a start.
what's next? researchers use beads to do arithmetic?
Never heard of an abacus?
Honestly I don't get the stance of some ppl from the US against Russia.
Russia is the best friend and has been the most loyal, the strongest and the most valuable ally for the USA. Really. At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together. It was before and it may be again when we have to save the Earth itself. Nobody can help the US but Russia when things get hot. Alienating Russians is what make things worse.
Those things are called movies. The space aliens didn't really invade Earth.
Idiot, he was referring to the documentary about the asteroid that they blew up with the nuke. You know, when Daredevil makes out with Arwen.
I score high on the Get Off My Lawn game.
Last time that happened for a pregnant couple, it started a whole new religion.
Replying to myself: I assumed they would cut expenses to feed the shareholders but I was wrong. TFA explains:
Amazon generated a whopping $74.45 billion in revenue for its financial year to 31 December 2013, but just $274 million in net income, a margin of roughly 0.3 percent. It sells Kindles at cost.
Compare this with Google, which saw net income of $12.9 billion on revenues of $59.8 billion for the year to 31 December 2013, a margin on 21.6 percent; or to Microsoft, which posted revenue of $77.9 billion for the year to 30 June, with a net income $21.9 billion, a margin of 28.1 percent
Question is: how do they manage to make shareholders accept that?
I'm guessing the investors expect Amazon to become and stay the Walmart of the internet (or perhaps the Sears and Roebuck from catalog days) and be be able to either ramp up margins or pay them at that level for a LONG time.
IIRC, the standard deduction this year was $6900 for single payers. Pretty easy to top that via mortgage interest.
Here, there's a fee to pay for the rain that lands on your property. It's a drainage fee - you have to pay the company that operates the storm drains to take it away.
Fellow MD resident?
Looks like the rest of your comment was truncated. Let me help:
"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. "
"Then candidate Bush referred to this as what? Something d-o-o economics. Anyone? Anyone?"
You can write a Classic ASP app in vbscript or javascript.
While technically true, I doubt very many organizations actually do that in practice, based on my observations, such that it's not worth making that distinction, except perhaps as a footnote.
They Bay Area is one of the few economically active places in the USA, that's why housing is expensive there.
If you want cheap housing, go to an economically dying area, like Detroit; or a place with no regulations such that chemicals leak into your house or explode in your face, like Texas.
It was actually wishful thinking rather than faith. I've seen the same things you describe. I've also seen where things like this are swept under the rug forever. Then, the root cause analysis comes back and people flip shit because nothing was done about it in the past. Well, nothing other than ignore the recomendations of us morlocks...
Ah; but the guy down at the station babysitting the PLC probably wants to get his Facebook fix too -- so he hooks up a wireless USB stick and presto! The entire national WAN is now online....
And the next day, he finds a pink slip waiting for him.
And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?
If what he said is true, then this is yet another (out of many) example of the courts 'creatively interpreting' (in other words, modifying it with invisible ink) the constitution.
Sure, it's a wikipedia link, but it's trivial to verify.
Do not use the blue keys on this terminal.