turc1656

81 ms·

661.
by turc1656 10y ago
I am also having a Microsoft account issue that is similar to this. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com/forum/oaccou... Difference for me is that I have no idea how the work account was created.
662.
by turc1656 10y ago
Yeah, the issue here is that he doesn't want to block Google from indexing his site because he wants to be ranked in the results, so he allows Google to display information that is on his site. He would have to disallow reproduction o
663.
by turc1656 10y ago
But not the one it needs right now.
664.
by turc1656 10y ago
I agree corporations get off far too easy. And that is the fault of the government in many cases for not prosecuting them or letting them off with fines far below the profits of illegal activity. "Controlling the supply of labor is ve
665.
by turc1656 10y ago
How is this an absurd generalization? This type of crap happens all the time. And people should absolutely talk about this stuff constantly because this kind of stuff shows the true colors of the union(s) and what they really stand for.
666.
by turc1656 10y ago
The author claims the request for ID is an "invasion of privacy"? Such a claim is absurd. A request for something is not an invasion of privacy and never is. He can simply decline to provide the information - which is the path
667.
by turc1656 10y ago
Interesting. Thanks for this information. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to the case at hand, though, as Lexmark is not a newcomer to the industry nor is the industry itself relatively new, thus requiring facilitation from tied sales.
668.
by turc1656 10y ago
This is just an extension of a tied sale. Tying agreements are already illegal under anti-trust law. The only difference here is that Lexmark (and other companies) are skipping the contract/agreement part of it and going directly to
669.
by turc1656 10y ago
Yep, like when the city gets into financial trouble and can't meet it's overstuffed pension promises. Don't worry, though. I'm sure it will just be "anonymized" data that won't be personally attachable t
670.
by turc1656 10y ago
No, but it sounds like he knows about this stuff all too well. His final scenario is essentially what happened to my father: "We are kinda indifferent. If you piss us off, we will look for ways to make you miserable. If you leave and
671.
by turc1656 10y ago
"Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." Wow. That statement alone tells you everything you need to know about that pers
672.
by turc1656 10y ago
Weird. This is the very first thing I thought of. That, or properly secured way up in a huge tree. How many people are looking up, right? Although, the tree thing doesn't fit with his ability as a ~80 year old to put it up there. I
673.
by turc1656 10y ago
If that's true, that seems like the sort of thing that would lead to a ton of false positives getting flagged for removal. I'm sure big news events like the Wikileaks Vault7 release would generate lots of comments. Doing a quick
674.
by turc1656 10y ago
Thank you for this. This sounds like a solid approach that I can benefit from.
675.
by turc1656 10y ago
I would like to see a monthly version of this post, similar to the recurring "Who's Hiring" that happens every month.
676.
by turc1656 10y ago
"Passenger’s side—and by that I mean the right side here—proponents generally include most continental European carmakers, and many American ones, while the biggest driver’s side—the left side—advocates seem to be from Japan." Not
677.
by turc1656 10y ago
Honestly, I don't really know much of anything about civil unions so maybe your right. If that's the case, I have no idea what the actual distinction is between a civil union and marriage would be then if they both confer the sam
678.
by turc1656 10y ago
"You're asking for government recognition of your marriage." True, but that's only because, as another user mentioned in this thread, that there are legal benefits of being married. You also touched upon this subject. B
679.
by turc1656 10y ago
I care, and you should, too. Because if we don't agree with the original intent anymore or no longer think it's valid or fits in with our current societal values and beliefs, then it should be re-examined and either modified or s
680.
by turc1656 10y ago
Nope, definitely wasn't right in most cases. I can understand why some of it exists, though - like not being able to be forced to testify against your spouse. The two people who are married are supposed to be "one" so the e
681.
by turc1656 10y ago
Those legal benefits would not be lost. You would obtain/retain those benefits once you sign the paperwork declaring yourself married. That document would be held in force with all legal consequences (benefits and ramifications) unti
682.
by turc1656 10y ago
The national conversation on this topic is entirely wrong. The supreme court has clearly stated a number of times over the the years ( http://afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fu... ) that marriage is a
683.
by turc1656 10y ago
I agree that controlling for certain factors is a core principal in statistics so that you can tease out relationships once you quantify the impact of other factors. Also, "if done correctly" is a huge assumption with everyone hav
684.
by turc1656 10y ago
I disagree. That link shows no formulas whatsoever, just a generalized explanation of what they do. Without a hard set of rules to follow, it's useless. Also, looking into the X-13 ARIMA software documentation, it looks similar to o
685.
by turc1656 10y ago
My point was simply that there is not agreement across the board that they commit more crimes. Yes, people are unscrupulous when it comes to statistics, that's definitely true. But "adjusting" for things is usually a way for
686.
by turc1656 10y ago
"No one is even contesting that immigrants commit more crimes" You must be joking. There is a huge amount of people who claim they don't. For example, these media outlets which many people find to be reputable: http:/
687.
by turc1656 10y ago
If you are willing to do this, then why not just say "no" to the CBP and DHS? You must be allowed in if you are a citizen so the only risk is them keeping your phone for a few weeks while they try to hack it to get inside. I bel
688.
by turc1656 10y ago
"A non-American who is asked to hand over their devices and passwords is faced with the dilemma of protecting their privacy or potentially being denied entry to the US." Odds are that if DHS or CBP agents ask any non-citizen for t
689.
by turc1656 10y ago
Took the words out of my mouth. Glad to see someone else commenting on this. As soon as I saw that I was thinking..."well, gee, that seems like a terrible idea".
690.
by turc1656 10y ago
Those aren't the types of ads I was referring to. I was talking about in-page ads like AdSense. But it's good to know they do that.

More ›