Social Security Admin finds 2009 earning stats skewed

Basically, two people filed a bunch of W-2 forms claiming to be billionaires, and those forms were not caught and ended up skewing the 2009 numbers so that it appeared that top earners made five times what they made in 2008. When those fraudulent forms are thrown out, the wages of top earners actu

RE: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

> MJ has three significant side effects. It makes > you hungry, sleepy and horny. Not necessarily in > that order I must have someone baking it into my brownies without my knowledge then, because you just described my whole life. Speaking of which, it's 1:30am here on the east coast so I'm hea

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Justin Scott wrote: > >> Thirty minutes later I was pain free and asleep. >> ... >> Legalize Humboldt Organic and they lose the market ... Viagra. > > 'Cause everyone will be too sleepy for sex?  ;) MJ has three significant side effects. It makes you hungry, sle

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > > This proposition lost because of its flaws, I fear. The LA Times ran a big > piece on the problems with it, and then said don't vote for it. Next time > around ... The proposition said legalize and tax. What flaws? LA Times also gets a h

RE: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

> Thirty minutes later I was pain free and asleep. > ... > Legalize Humboldt Organic and they lose the market ... Viagra. 'Cause everyone will be too sleepy for sex? ;) -Justin ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! h

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Maureen wrote: > > On a really weird note, my vaporizer is broken and I had a bad bout of > pain and nausea last night, so for the first time in my life, I > actually rolled a joint. It was sloppy, but effectual. Two puffs and > the nausea went away. Thirty minu

Re: getting it in the rear

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, denstar wrote: > >> >> Ironically, I'm pretty sure that it will be technology itself, >> protecting us from technology. >> > > I have a project in mind in the area of secure collaboration. Wish I had > some time

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

It is the day to vote, but Prop 19 is losing. All the growers and dealers are voting against it, and that's a huge chunk of the population, especially on Planet NorCal. The Gov signed a bill into law last month making possession of less than an ounce a citation offense, like a traffic ticket, an

Re: Not sure why I voted today

We have positions like that for judiciary out here. I also voted no on all them unless I knew the candidate. I'm a vote by mail voter so I can plenty of time to mark my ballot, and I did a lot of research in the other races before I voted, but I just couldn't muster enough interest in the judges

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

Pretty. I miss the changing leaf colors in the fall. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > > This is the view as I turn down my driveway.  I'd post the view from my > office, but all it looks out onto is more buildings. :( > ~~

Re: Giants?

I like the Giants ok, and I think it is cool that they won. Still a Braves fan at heart though. I was glad we had rain earlier this week, but the fools in the neighborhood set off fireworks for about an hour after the game, and without the rain I fear the entire hillside would aflame. On Tue, N

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

holy crap its so tight. 51/49 and only 300 some votes separate them. wow. what's in like 10% of the votes so far? Sent from my iPhone... Don't hate. On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > > I don't know. The polls are not good, but as Maureen said earlier, people in > a poll might

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

I don't know. The polls are not good, but as Maureen said earlier, people in a poll might be wary of answering the question honestly. We'll see, but I'm expecting the proposition to be defeated. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Tony Weeg wrote: > > what's the feeling out there? you think it's go

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

what's the feeling out there? you think it's got enough traction? Sent from my iPhone... Don't hate. On Nov 2, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > > I voted for it despite my misgivings about the specifics of the proposition. > I figure if we run into problems with the specifics we can alw

Re: getting it in the rear

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, denstar wrote: > > Ironically, I'm pretty sure that it will be technology itself, > protecting us from technology. > I have a project in mind in the area of secure collaboration. Wish I had some time to execute on it. Slowly but surely... ~~

Re: getting it in the rear

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, denstar wrote: > >> >> Yo fellow commers! >> >> I generally assume y'all, being sorta tech-ish, are already up to >> speed on this lame ass stuff: >> >> https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/10/28 >> > > The r

Re: getting it in the rear

Dude, that seems almost like admitting to reading our drivel. :) S'all good. The urge to laugh, and make others laugh, is powerful stuff. :Den -- The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine just

Re: getting it in the rear

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, denstar wrote: > > Yo fellow commers! > > I generally assume y'all, being sorta tech-ish, are already up to > speed on this lame ass stuff: > > https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/10/28 > The road to totalitarianism begins when reasonable people refuse to spe

Re: getting it in the rear

I guess you're right. God probably hardened his heart, so he didn't /really/ have a choice. Poor guy. What are you going to do tho, neh? That's why I still love him. I was this [--] close to using "Did you see what GOD just did to us, man?!?!" as the subject line. Butt the "back door" refere

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

I voted for it despite my misgivings about the specifics of the proposition. I figure if we run into problems with the specifics we can always get another measure on the ballot to fix it. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Vivec wrote: > > Is today the marijuana LEGALISE IT vote in California? >

Re: getting it in the rear

All for one and one for all hmmm? On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Sam wrote: > > Why you riding the O man? Leave him be, this right here is good stuff. > > Keeps us safe and all. > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:27 PM, denstar wrote: > > > > Yo fellow commers! > > > > I generally assume y'all, b

Re: getting it in the rear

Why you riding the O man? Leave him be, this right here is good stuff. Keeps us safe and all. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:27 PM, denstar wrote: > > Yo fellow commers! > > I generally assume y'all, being sorta tech-ish, are already up to > speed on this lame ass stuff: > > https://www.eff.org/pres

cf9 poster

where can i get one? upgrading 31 apps from 7 to 9 ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-c

getting it in the rear

Yo fellow commers! I generally assume y'all, being sorta tech-ish, are already up to speed on this lame ass stuff: https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/10/28 Obama, if you are reading this, I want you to know, I don't like this at all! I think it sucks, and is pure evil! I still <3 you tho.

RE: Not sure why I voted today

We have the same with judges...and I do the same. Eric -Original Message- From: Justin Scott [mailto:jscott-li...@gravityfree.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:10 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: Not sure why I voted today > It's a shame that there was no competition in so man

Re: Not sure why I voted today

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > That's the reason. It is a civic duty and responsibility. > > It's a shame that there was no competition in so many races. A lack of > competition breeds arrogant politicians. > At least I could vote for the candidates Independent label vs

RE: Not sure why I voted today

We have a lot of that here...there are a lot of races were we only have republicans...I just left those blank (which is allowable) since we don't have a write in or something to indicate hey I am voting just not for this schmuck... -Original Message- From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@g

RE: Not sure why I voted today

> It's a shame that there was no competition in so many > races. A lack of competition breeds arrogant politicians. Here in Florida we have a lot of "Shall so and so be retained for some position" type questions on the ballot. Usually positions on oversight committees and review boards and such

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

This is the view as I turn down my driveway. I'd post the view from my office, but all it looks out onto is more buildings. :( http://www.flickr.com/photos/7461...@n02/4081536853/ On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote: > > Spectacular! > > I cannot compete with that, but do lov

Re: Not sure why I voted today

"Got up this morning and did my civic duty by voting. " That's the reason. It is a civic duty and responsibility. It's a shame that there was no competition in so many races. A lack of competition breeds arrogant politicians. J - You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

I think the only other NSFW would be jacob. Myself, these days my commute is so short that I barely get the camera out to take the shots. my On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Casey Dougall wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Maureen wrote: > >> And to continue the sharing, here are a cou

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Maureen wrote: > And to continue the sharing, here are a couple of shots of my commute > to the city. > I'd show my commute to the office, although could be considered NSFW depending on what I wore to bed the night before :-) ~~

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

Spectacular! I cannot compete with that, but do love this view out my office window: http://picasaweb.google.com/jmiloj/MyDailyCommute#5489730493939406450 (That is the Old South Meetinghouse, where the rabble gathered in a me

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:24 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: > > I think today would be a good day (at least until the polls close) to > share non-political pictures.  This one is safe for work Cool pics of the goats. And to continue the sharing, here are a couple of shots of my commute to the cit

Not sure why I voted today

Got up this morning and did my civic duty by voting. There were a total of 55 races being decided. 33 of those races had uncontested republican candidates. More than half were decided before the polling booths opened up. It's not like these were inconsequential positions, these were judges.

Re: Giants?

hmmm... how can we bet on this? On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:44 PM, G Money wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ras Tafari wrote: > >> >> at the hands of whom? >> the chiefs who barely beat the bills? at the black hole? >> > > Yep, that's who. > > >

Re: That was quick

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, denstar wrote: > To you 1 instance occurring on one side is the same as 5 on the other, > but come on. I was actually two to three and that's only because you weren't offended by the hundreds of anti-semitic comments. > If that was the point of this exercise, I

Re: Giants?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ras Tafari wrote: > > at the hands of whom? > the chiefs who barely beat the bills? at the black hole? > Yep, that's who. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adob

Re: Giants?

at the hands of whom? the chiefs who barely beat the bills? at the black hole? PLASE! On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM, G Money wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Ras Tafari wrote: > >> >> si!  :) >> >> naww, i know one person from sf, and she was in the parade there today >> said it

Re: Giants?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Ras Tafari wrote: > > si! :) > > naww, i know one person from sf, and she was in the parade there today > said it was a blast. > me, i couldnt care less :) > > if it ain't the O's, then, well, you know :) > > btw, how 'bout dem raydahhhs > Their last two

Re: Giants?

si! :) naww, i know one person from sf, and she was in the parade there today said it was a blast. me, i couldnt care less :) if it ain't the O's, then, well, you know :) btw, how 'bout dem raydahhhs On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM, G Money wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, R

Re: Giants?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Ras Tafari wrote: > > who? > > Sorry: Los Gigantes de San Francisco. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusi

speaking of Texas teams

Anyone catch Kitna on the post game conference? Was he going straight to seminary afterwards? http://www.dallascowboys.com/multimedia/multimedia_center.cfm?id=0438FC39-CB87-1C4B-3825464F865E0173 Look at the hate we're breeding Look at the fear we're feeding Look at the lives we're leading The

Re: Giants?

Rangers are about the only Texas team I like...so no...not a Giants fan...at least for now, until the wounds heal On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:05 PM, G Money wrote: > > No SF Giants fans on this list? Seriously? > > If the Royals ever win the world series again.(pause to let laughter > subsi

Re: Giants?

Apparently we cannot already! =) No, not a fan in the past, but a "Congrats", and "Heck of a job, Brownie" to the whole team. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, G Money wrote: > > No SF Giants fans on this list? Seriously? > > If the Royals ever win the world series again.(pause to let l

Re: That was quick

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:00 AM, denstar wrote: > >> I never said Republicans had a monopoly on retarded comments.  Just a >> majority.  =) > > And now you know they don't. That's the whole point of this exercise. We all know everybody poops. http:/

Re: Giants?

who? On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, G Money wrote: > > No SF Giants fans on this list? Seriously? > > If the Royals ever win the world series again.(pause to let laughter > subside).you wouldn't be able to get me to shut up :) > > >

Giants?

No SF Giants fans on this list? Seriously? If the Royals ever win the world series again.(pause to let laughter subside).you wouldn't be able to get me to shut up :) ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

If I could, I would as well. J - It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. - George Washington ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/14

Re: Update on the Tea Party stomping...

"I think tackling the woman was reactionary, not preventative." Of course it was reactionary. They saw her take off running towards the car with her placard after standing there acting strangely for who knows how long. They reacted. If it were preventative, they would have tackled her before t

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: > > > It's about two years since my cruise, need another tropical vacation - > This > > is Grand Caymans Island! > > > http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dd-OweZImxnGwu19YGPAgPfq3Rn3H2osmcIn9r4hwU4?feat=directlink > > What no sign for "

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

Here is one I will cherish for a long time. Not only is it from St Andrews, but it was from the last golf trip I took with my dad. http://www.boyzoid.com/images/zoid_old_course.jpg On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Casey Dougall wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey > w

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

>From an economic perspective... WOW. Tourism would go through the bloody roof. On 2 November 2010 11:24, Jacob wrote: > > KLM would probably not serve LAX anymore. No more need for LA to Amsterdam > flights... > > ~| Order

RE: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

KLM would probably not serve LAX anymore. No more need for LA to Amsterdam flights... -Original Message- From: Vivec [mailto:gel21...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 7:42 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :) I doubt it will pass, but if it

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

> It's about two years since my cruise, need another tropical vacation - This > is Grand Caymans Island! > http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dd-OweZImxnGwu19YGPAgPfq3Rn3H2osmcIn9r4hwU4?feat=directlink What no sign for "Heaven 0mi"? ~

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

> Here is an interesting little corner of the world. Are you familiar with the > trend called "tiny houses"? > Here is one pretty cool one: > http://tinyhouseblog.com/dome/eco-pod-home/ I've seen rabbit warrens with more space than that! ~~

Re: That was quick

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:00 AM, denstar wrote: > I never said Republicans had a monopoly on retarded comments.  Just a > majority.  =) And now you know they don't. That's the whole point of this exercise. > Democrats can be asses too.  (lol). We have progress. >> I forgot to mention: How fun

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: > I think today would be a good day (at least until the polls close) to > share non-political pictures. This one is safe for work > It's about two years since my cruise, need another tropical vacation - This is Grand Caymans Island! h

New CFBuilder Storm revealed

http://cfmumbojumbo.com/cf/index.cfm/cfconferences/adobemax-2010/cfbuilder-storm-sneek-peek/ - Code folding will now be remembered when you close and reopen the file. - You can customize code folding (ie, close some random blocks of code, as long as it doesn't already have a fold). -

Re: Non-Political Picture Thread

Very nice! Love those goats. Here is an interesting little corner of the world. Are you familiar with the trend called "tiny houses"? Here is one pretty cool one: http://tinyhouseblog.com/dome/eco-pod-home/ On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM, C. Hatton

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

I doubt it will pass, but if it does. Wow. It will be totally historic. California will be in the news for months worldwide :-) ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1

Non-Political Picture Thread

I think today would be a good day (at least until the polls close) to share non-political pictures. This one is safe for work http://asianenergy.blogspot.com/2010/10/youve-got-to-be-kidding-herd-of.html It's a dam in Italy with mountain goats just wandering on it, eating lichen and licking the

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Ras Tafari wrote: > > if i could i would, so i hope all my cali brothers and sisters are > > + 1 / 4:20 ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-A

Re: Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

if i could i would, so i hope all my cali brothers and sisters are On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Vivec wrote: > > Is today the marijuana LEGALISE IT vote in California? > > :) > > Anyone going out and voting? > > > ~| O

Who's voting to LEGALISE IT today! :)

Is today the marijuana LEGALISE IT vote in California? :) Anyone going out and voting? ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: ht

Re: Update on the Tea Party stomping...

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:33 PM, denstar wrote: > >> There was no real action until it was obvious she had a sign (which >> both her hands were holding). > > That wasn't covering a dagger? Hell, she could have been concealing a nuke in her bodice! Ju

Re: That was quick

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Sam wrote: ... > OK Woohoo! ... >> The data is in:  Abstinence Only flunks every test. > > It was an experiment started by Clinton. As much as you want to > believe it was a pure failure the jury is still out. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_e

Re: That was quick

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, denstar wrote: >> >>> But... they didn't give examples. >> >> They didn't?  I remember two in specific:  "Gays are gay by choice", >> and "I can't tell the difference between Asians and Latinos". > > You find those offe