The cats let me think I'm in charge. It's part of their charm.
Dogs have people, cats have staff.
I am confused by how that statement can be true. If the majority of the owners disagree with his compensation, how can the majority of the owners not go fix the problem? Did they sign a terrible contract?
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.
I am American, and for the life of me I don't where we got the notion that anything I fell like doing is an inalienable right.
My guess? You're over 30.
"mit stack checker", and it's the first URL returned: css.csail.mit.edu/stack
And that URL eventually returns:
internal error - server connection terminated
What about Betamax, Minidisc, and MemoryStick? Sony has been trying to force everyone onto a Sony-controlled format for many years, Bluray was merely their first success.
Let's not forget
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?
If companies can make encryption automatic, easy and invisible to the end users - and trustworthy, it will catch on.
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?
If the spies are actively targeting someone, yes. But they can't hack *everyone* - not only would it be expensive, but they'd be detected in no time at all. So if your objective is to avoid the dragnet, it works.
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.
The coins aren't in the wallet - they're in a completely transparent, publicly viewable account in the bitcoin block chain. Every transaction is visible to everyone. The wallet only contains the credentials that allow you to transfer the coins to another account. If the wallet was encrypted, and they were unable to access the credentials, then they cannot meaningfully seize the account since another copy of the credentials could (and should) exist elsewhere allowing someone else to spend the coins.
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?
My cup holder is broken!!!
Closed as being unable to reproduce. Hopefully the same holds true for the ticket submitter.
That is one thing that really gets under my skin -- when I am visiting with someone (i.e., I took the effort to go over to their space, whether it is a co-worker's office, or visiting with family), and their phone rings. No matter what we're in the middle of talking about, that phone call always gets priority.
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.
A) it works
B) it is easy for a new guy to pick up.
Those are the main benefits you are getting from a well known framework,
Just because a framework is well known does not imply either of these two things are true.
Second, I checked the references to the times involved, and unless somebody really screwed up in a major way, then there is a genuine time discrepancy. In the government's own records, not just according to some bozo reporter out to make a name for herself.
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.
Real computer scientists like having a computer on their desk, else how could they read their mail?