37

Thank you very much, this is the answer.

Which recent activities? House hearings on weaponization? Hersh's article on Nord Stream? Something else?

13 Jan 2015

Not sure if I understand, but the article gives a number of examples, such as:

> Mary knows that she could control her pain if she could take vitamin pills, eat a special diet, and go to physiotherapy. She can’t afford it. “Mary identifies poverty as the driver of her MAID request,” Gibb-Carsley writes on a slide accompanying her talk, emphasizing the. “She does not want to die, but she’s suffering terribly and she’s been maxing out her credit cards. She has no other options.”

Why did the SSL expire?

I'm only asking because I have a domain that also uses a certificate from Let's Encrypt / R3 / ISRG Root X1 and I've never had to renew it. (It seems like they auto-renew every 90 days?)

>Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based.

It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making.

By the same logic, both groups are fully aware that Google starts with the letter G, therefore the size of the fine is based on the fact that Google starts with the letter G.

I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true.

>The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based

What? Says who? It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. FTA: The ACCC and Google jointly submitted to the Court that a penalty of $60 million against Google LLC was appropriate, and that no separate penalty against Google Australia Pty Ltd was necessary, in circumstances where the Australian company was not responsible for the preparation of the screens which the Court found were misleading.