This is because the executive compensation package is typically determined by the board of directors, not the shareholders. Shareholders can express their opinion on the matter with a vote of "no confidence" like this and the board will give it the due consideration that it deserves. If you have the time check out what companies are run by the members of the board and see if they don't sit on each others boards. Fred won't mess with Larry's compensation because LArry is a member of the board at Fred's company. In the end the board members all get their backs scratched and the shareholders just get fscked.

My guess? You're over 30.

And that URL eventually returns:

Nice job /.

Let's not forget ATRAC3.
Anyone else have the pleasure of buying a CD player marketed as MP3 compatible, only to find out that you had to transcode to ATRAC3 first?

How do you make this happen when the government can compel companies to add backdoors to the processor and also compel them to not tell anyone they did it?

Reminds me of when people said that they couldn't listen in on everyone, which was true right up until they figured out a way to do it.

Given that according to TFA, the Feds have already transferred the coins to another account that they hold and that the transfers are a part of the current accepted blockchain, I would say that they have seized them. A side effect is that by revealing the blockchain entry for the transfers, they have marked these coins as government owned and traceable for the rest of their existence.

I wonder if it would be possible to also transfer the coins using a blockchain prior to the Fed transfer, then somehow replace the Fed transfer in the current blockchain and get the majority to accept the substitution, effectively denying the Feds their seizure? I realize that the majority design of Bitcoin is meant to prevent this sort of thing in reality, but it should be theoretically possible, right?

Closed as being unable to reproduce. Hopefully the same holds true for the ticket submitter.

I had this sort of issue with one particular boss. He would constantly place our conversations "on hold" so that he could take a phone call. He got the point though when I left his office during one such interruption and called him on the phone so that we could continue the conversation.

Just because a framework is well known does not imply either of these two things are true.

But what does the time of death of two seal team members have to do with the time of death of a state department official?
Here are the facts. The assault in Benghazi began at 9:40pm local time on 9/11. Smith was known to have been dead by 11:40pm local time. From that we can assume he is likely the state department official mentioned by Ms. Clinton. An AP report quoting Ms. Clinton at 4:58am on 9/12 noting the death and discussing the attack would be perfectly normal as far as a timeline goes. The Seals were killed at about 5:15am on 9/12 during a second attack, not the first and it is unrelated to the AP story or Ms. Clinton's statements.

From the FAQ:
How do you suggest we ID? US regulations (CFR Sec 97.119) require amateur radio stations to identify themselves at the beginning and end of a transmission and at least once every 10 minutes. If you ID at the beginning of the first "dit" of the HI and at the end of the final one before you go QRT, you will meet the US requirements. Others should verify that this will meet your national requirements.

But are you sure you know everything that is in those packets? Nothing extra in those DNS requests leaving your network?

Reminds me of a certain Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Novel.