If you look at a personal check, you'll see the words "pay to the order of". A check is an order to your bank to pay to whoever the check is made out to (out of your funds). It can be made out to "bearer", ie., the person bearing (carrying) the check. As soon as the check changes hands, its owner changes and so does the person who has to be paid when the check is presented. A more common way to write such a check is to make it to "cash". In fact, legally a check made out to "bearer" or "cash" should not require a presenter's endorsement. Because whoever is bearing the check is the one to whom the bank was ordered to pay the money (most bank won't honor such an order without an endorsement though). What does that have to do with the bonds? Well, the "bearer" has the same connotation in this context. A bond is a promise to pay at a future date (an IOU). A registered bond is a promise to pay to its rightful owner. A "bearer" bond is a promise to pay to whoever physically holds the bond.

Generally, no. Bonds are issued in fairly large denominations. But in this case, it would raise eyebrows because of the date. $1billion dollar bond would not be issued in 1934. No financial institution would have lent money in such one large chunk against 1 financial paper. Today bonds are issued in at least 100 million issues, but as someone pointed out, today they are registered, so it doesn't matter what the original issue is.

Sure the work is less intellectually stimulating, but it is also less stressful. More likely than not you have the skill for it. You are less likely to have to pull long hours (QA has much more definable deliverables than development). Because you are older, you can brush off the egos of the younger developers who think of you as glorified IT personal. It's more utilitarian and less creative, but it sounds like you are sick of being on the hook for the deliverables. So the stage of your career when you thought of development as creative work has long passed.

Umm, no I am afraid in this situation there is an actual true dichotomy. They are either his kids or they aren't. And being his doesn't preclude them from also being hers.

Well, to maintain a private school more expensive, they'd have to show that it produces better education. So they would do what expensive private universities do with poor kids: let them in based on talent and only let the very rich kids with a slightly lesser talent in. Basically, it doesn't produce segregation. Money in this case only acts as a tie breaker in the acceptance decisions.

Damn right! But don't forget to pay the taxes which pay for the schools.

Gosh! Freedom to feed your own kids is sooooo much just like slavery. What is this 1800s? Land of the free, home of the lame? She is 4. Obviously, the state needs to make sure that she is fed to become an active, productive member of society. There was a time when listening to songs about being just another "brick in the wall" made you a liberal. Apparently, "we haz ur kids" is soooo much more liberal than telling The Man to bud out.

The lunch had milk, vegetables and nuggets. She only ate the nuggets.

But the school is not denying it. Instead she was given a "meal" of which she ate only the chicken nuggets. Get off your "conservatives are idiots" high horse. "Liberals are nazis" is what "cool kids" are saying nowadays.

You are confusing a wife with a gf or mistress. As I have told my little brother, who wasn't sure if his live-in gf was a marriage material, "if she is already doing your laundry, she is not just a hot blond you are screwing, anymore."