UnpossibleJim
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
1) A person was shot by someone at the scene
2) A different person who was in conflict with the first person had a gun with the same ballistic profile (caliber etc.)
3) There are two separate parties with an interest in the outcome who witnessed the crime
4) The first party with an interest, was actively aggrivating people at the scene, causing hightened tensions
5) The second party was in direct conflict with the first
I have a hard time believing the first party shot their own in order to press charges on the second party. It doesn't pass the Occam's razor test, TBHEDIT: I suck at formatting
If the employee is doing all that's expected of them, then the "contract for owning someone for a period of time" (not my words - and relatively creepy) should be fulfilled. It doesn't seem a period of time that is expected but a force of work delivered.
I am willing to be wrong in this assumption, however, given the right argument.
Sorry to ask so many questions, but as a maker of personal projects which are games, I'm curious about the promotion and monetization of mobile games =)
EDIT: serious question; would Slack be professional networking or, how does that work under this bill? It's DMing for business, but it isn't really networking.
Would an incident like this make other banks shore up their defenses about this sort of thing happening to them, or will more banks fall due to market conditions in general?
Don't forget the evils of "harmful lyrics" that Tipper Gore saved us from. That was teaching children forbidden concepts like inner city music and dangerous metal music.