You don't have to make the little guy pay for it, you can make big tech pay for it. Unless big tech has set up their own ISPs in Europe, they're paying someone to access the internet. Why isn't their bill higher?
She wasn't though. He had a better hand until the river card was turned over. Unless you mean if she could see not only his private cards, but also the turn and the river. But that would require collusion with the house.
No he didn't have a better hand. He may have had better odds to get the cards he needed to win, but he never had a better hand.
Pre flop:
he had 87s
she had j4o
She's ahead. J high beats 8 high.
Odds might be in his favor but if the board doesn't improve for him, she wins.
Flop is 10 10 9 with 2 clubs
She still has the winning hand (her J high beats the 8 high he's holding)
he has a great chance to come out ahead if he hits his club or straight draw. the odds are good for him with 2 cards left , but again right now she still has the winning hand if he doesn't find a club or straight
Turn is a 3 of hearts (10 10 9 3)
Her J high is still winning vs his 8 high at the moment
at this point the percentages are still in his favor with card left since any club, J,7, or 6 can give him the winning hand(straight or flush) but at the moment she is still ahead with J high vs 8 high since they're both playing the board
River is is A of spades (10 10 9 3 A)
now its official that if he can't get this bluff through her cards of 10 10 9 A and J from her hand beats the
10 10 9 A 8 of his.
He had better odds till the river but he never had a better hand than her. It was always his 8 vs her J.
Because she was able to see each street before deciding to bet or call, she only had to know his hand to make the right decision on each street.
That makes no sense.
If she could see his hand, she absolutely calls because she's winning on every street.
Clarifying that she would be able to call pre, flop, turn, and river because she could see she's ahead every step. It would be a different story if he went all in pre flop, she called, and the run out went how it did.
That makes no sense.
If she could see his hand, she absolutely calls because she's winning on every street.
The properties weren't stolen. They were bought using the money defrauded from Apple. The properties should be sold and the money given to Apple if they aren't able to recoup the 10 mil otherwise.
If I die and owe inheritance tax, it's assessed on the gain in value at some point during the settlement of the estate.
But unless the stocks are being liquidated to pass to the heirs, they're going to pay the capital gains tax when they sell them later.
Did you read the tweet thread you linked to?
The guy replied to his own thread with:
To be clear
@AlxThomp
checked and found itâ(TM)s CNN running ads against Elizabeth Warren.
And AlxThomp's tweet said:
Fwiw: I asked Twitter about this and a spox said that CNN and Amazon had an advertising partnership on Twitter around the democratic debate....This was a prearranged ad deal before the debate and CNN had complete editorial control over the content
While you might have issues with Amazon, this is the work of CNN, not Amazon.
When did Europe become a benchmark of what was possible?
The DoJ TRIED to stop the ATT/TW merger and lost in court.
The DoJ had Fox make concessions with divesting 22 regional sport channels since tESPN is probably the singles biggest force in sports broadcasting(property of Disney).
I think it might be a cultural/country thing. As a US citizen (but also as a person who is into finance) the headline made sense to me. When a stock goes down a noticeable amount, 'plummets' or 'tanks' are often the verbs used to describe it.
I can understand if it let you in after hitting enter once, because then it's just ignoring something. If it denies entry the first few times and then lets you in, what do the *nix gurus think is happening after the first few denials to have it change its 'mind?
If you were running an unsupported (see very old) version of Windows and didn't have a (probably very expensive) support contract to cover it, you would be paying MS to fix that exploit. I'm not sure if Apple has support contracts to support very old iOSs but probably not. Seems unlike them.
From wiki:
"Three months later, on August 1, 2007, News Corporation and Dow Jones entered into a definitive merger agreement.[24] The US$5 billion sale added The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's news empire, which already included Fox News Channel, financial network unit and London's The Times, and locally within New York, the New York Post, along with Fox flagship station WNYW (Channel 5) and MyNetworkTV flagship WWOR (Channel 9).[25]"
so they adjust their prices to compensate).
If they've already adjusted their prices to account for this, then there isn't an incentive to pay with cash since you're paying the same price whether you're paying with cash or card (yes, there are a few places that charge less for cash, but they are far and few between).
Personally, I would rather have a person who has run several large non-profits over a business mogul as President, because they know how to make an organization run on limited funds and making do with what they have.
I would think you'd want someone who has ran several small to medium size non-profits then because the large non profits (Gates Foundation as one example) operates on a fairly large budget and has very little chance of ever running out of money. One of the perks of being large.
The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard
