All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments. Seems to me that the person you really should be going after is the one who implemented that policy -- or passed the laws that allow that policy.

you forgot to mention that you'll fellate him behind the Taco Bell for free.

Probably because you're a cunt.

Perhaps by placing a lamp above the road...

Yeah, still have it.

The amount of money they offer for a reward only has to be high enough to make it worthwhile for someone who has information to come forward. The amount of money they lost in the attack is really irrelevant. It's not like they'll get that money back if there's a conviction.

You're both fuckwits... and your track records sucks too, btw.

According to the author, apparently "free-to-play" is a new business model. Funny, I've been playing "free-to-play" games for well over twenty years now; and back in the old shareware days it was fairly common to have a feature-limited free version that you had to upgrade to get the whole game.

Yes, some of the mechanics of ways to make money off of a free-to-play game have changed along with technology, but in concept things really haven't changed that much.

Yeah, trolling. Good one, fuckwit.

A lot of work for little payoff. Try again.

If you want the government to protect people from being fired for donating to a political campaign, then they should protect everyone, regardless of their job title or responsibilites. If you don't like the ramifications of that, then you should re-think whether the government should be offering this protection to anyone in the first place. But in this case, the benefits of the law probably outweigh the disadvantages.

That's not what the law says. And that's not what the law should say. If anyone is protected, then everyone should be.

Oh bullshit.. it does not take long to install Windows 7 or 8... There goes the whole day? You are either a complete retard or... nope, just a retard.

I agree with that. They should get no more, nor no less, protection than any other person.

Of course a CEO is in a "special position". So what? He's still a person, and it is wrong to deny him the rights and protections given to everyone else.

Your argument is based on dehumanizing a class of people.