elechi

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but a podiatrist does have to go to medical school.

It's annoying to me to use Virtualbox for OSs other than Linux or BSD based ones. It's even more buggy, and you're limited in the amount of processors and memory you can use in the free version.

I'm a bit ignorant into corporate law and taxes, but if one legal entity bought another legal entity for reasonable value, how is the sale of the company not capital gains to the previous owners? Unless the buying company vastly overpaid for the acquired company, I'm not sure what the IRS could do about this.

#edited to fix grammatical errors.

Is this a test to see if it's possible to make the programmers companies are looking for instead of just hiring programmers, or a test for your teaching skills?

Do what, exactly? Google has already stated multiple times that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. Microsoft hasn't brought any claims against Google, just people who implement the phones.

Google could probably sue Microsoft for slander, but again, Microsoft hasn't been going around telling the world that Android is infringing on it's patents. They, Microsoft, just go to the manufacturing companies, and even then they are making sure that manufacturing companies sign NDAs to keep the information from going out into the public.

And Google can't sue them to say, 'Tell me what you got.' Because that is fishing, and a form of intimidation, I think. I don't know the right legal term for it, but I do know you can't do it. So Google's hands seem to have been tied up until this point. Now that there are some information in the public, maybe they'll do something now.

See? That's how well these companies did with their marketing. It was such a successful campaign that you, who I'll presume is an intelligent human being, see it as silly legal issue. Frankly speaking? No. There really isn't another way for businesses to handle it. You're talking about legal issues, and the way to resolve legal issues is through legal means.

It seems silly now, but to many of these companies, it's the way for them to be unique, to stand out among the crowd. Because they came up with the word 'realtor' and 'entreprenur' to describe themselves, not to describe others. And, rightly or wrongly in this case, the government said that the words they use to describe themselves was so unique that it was worth it to legally make it theirs.

(And all the past successes of these names being turned into generic terms (Kleenex, Xerox, Aspirin) is the other reason why these companies are fighting tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't happen to them. The government has basically stated that it's a use it or lose it situation. And they are determined not to lose it. Whether or not that's a good thing....)

Quick: Who made Kleenex?

The answer is Kleenex. Now try to tell someone in a general conversation that you when you're talking about Kleenex, you meant 1) the actual company Kleenex, not the 2) product nor the 3) other generic tissue paper products. Because now you have to explain to consumers why your Kleenex is better than your competitors Kleenex, when before you could just say 'Kleenex, the brand that works' or 'Kleenex, the brand you trust' or just plain 'Kleenex'. Even if it's just a name, if you reduce the number of ways for you to differentiate your product from others, it just makes it harder to do so.

If you were making that much money, why couldn't just move to another country and make the money there? Is it illegal to do so?

Doing what exactly?

Such as? What are the three different needs?

I don't want to get too pedantic, and this may be beginning to get off-topic, and for that I apologize. But your example still isn't one of a privilege. What your example shows is that it is easier to concentrate on one thing instead of two or three things. Is time really free if you're choosing to just concentrate on one thing? Joke all we want that being a student is a job, but in most ways it is a job. Maybe not as strict as one, but if you're doing it properly, it should be as consuming as one.

It's not damaged 'permanent records'. Federal law states that a student's records are private, so it's not like they can be requested outside of the university. The solution you suggest would leave someone with a whole 12 month gap where, to be honest, most people would lie and say they had to work for school, instead of explaining what really happened to cause a 12 month gap. Also, I have no idea how your suggestion would work in terms of scholarships and student loans.

The solution I suggested would perhaps make it harder for a student to take a certain class if a professor doesn't allow students with 'records' into their class, but a lot easier than a 12 month expulsion.

Privileged? Ha. What a odd way of putting it. In what way is going to school a privilege? It's almost expected for everyone to go to a college/university nowadays. In what way is a college student privileged?

If you get caught cheating in a class, fail him or her in THAT CLASS. Mention it in their academic report, so that other teachers in the university are aware, and they the teachers themselves can decide whether or not they want that particular individual in their classroom.

That was only half of his problems. Divorce, a decent chunk of change. Battery assault? Rape? Decent chunk of change. People literally stealing money from you.

Tyson's problems had nothing to do with money. Money just made his problems more expensive.

Oh, yeah. Jordan actually invited and mentioned the person who beat him to get a spot on the varsity high school team to his PROFESSIONAL Hall of Fame event.

For those that even read a book about Jordan, and what his peers said about him and his reputation, wasn't really surprised by the speech. Most Hall of Fame speeches are somewhat dull, mostly about thanking people who helped them in life, what their life was like before and after success, and what lessons of life they learned from their experiences. Not Jordan.

Jordan mentioned every slight that was done to him, perceived or otherwise, and told the audience about how he found motivation from those slights. It was all about him, and his, hunger, to be the best. He even stated then that he could STILL come back right now and play in the NBA. To him, basketball was the way for him to be the best, and by God, he was going to do it, no matter who got in his way. Personally, it was way more enriching than someone like David Robinson's, but it was somewhat shocking when it was done at the time.

People always get shocked when they hear how people got successful, and what they REALLY had to do to get there. People like hearing about the successes, but rarely the failures and hardships endured. Everyone ignorant of his history thinks Mark Cuban just got lucky getting his wealth from selling broadcast.com to Yahoo (and even he admits it), but they rarely really listen to how he was living 5 guys to an apartment, how for 3 years he was paid low wage selling computer programs and parts to other businesses, how in college he was working his ass off teaching dance classes, running a bar, plus other business ideas I don't remember off the top of my head, while trying to get his degree.

Instead of glossing over that part of his success like most other HOF speeches, Jordan I believe high-lighted them, which just surprised people, that's all.

If I may inquire, what did you startup produce?

I don't think that's the slippery slope part. I think the slippery is not WHERE the test/information was procured, but HOW it was. If they merely bought the teacher's textbook, then it's not cheating. Even if they knew most of the exam's question came from that textbook, it's not cheating. It's lazy, and doesn't foster real learning, but it's not cheating. To me, this isn't a story on cheating, this is a story on laziness, and what acceptable level of laziness is allowed in higher education.

I believe it's because younger people are cheaper to support (financially, physically) as a society than older people. More flexible, too.

The Big Short - Michael Lewis

Perhaps someone could explain the reasoning behind the name. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Lunch bag: California innovations. It's big, so I carry inside that a water bottle, knife for apples, and keys.

Inside pockets: wallet, crappy LG phone, and my ipod so I can ignore others on the train.

I usually get the daily newspaper to occupy my time on the train otherwise.

They said you can go to a new smart phone and keep the old data plan. If you change the data plan to a newer data plan, you can't go back to unlimited.