mega

Can you explain how you think you need to be mega rich in America to have a good life?

It seems obvious to me that in fact you do not have to be mega rich to live well.

He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares.

In Russia there is only one kind of mega-wealth - politically-connected 90s wealth.

As a result of this and a number of other confidential issues I don't trust Mega anymore.

You're probably aware of this, but the PC-Engine (TurboGrafx's Japanese counterpart) actually did very well in Japan, beating the Mega Drive for second place in that market.

Little guy's costs may be covered if he wins, but with only 50K to spend, he still could lose because mega corp can drop 5M on the case.

I don't think your data is safe on Mega anymore.

I think there is a similar core issue (not problem) in both mega-genres, that they tend towards extremity - so anything that represents a particular extremity (e.g.

In practice, I submitted small changes from the hip, and complained when my coworkers gave me a week long spitball of unrelated features in a single mega-commit.

I had no idea Mega was publically shared.

But my non-compete clause is running out at the end of the year and I will create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit, similar to the Wikipedia model.

Even if the title is "Mega denies" they either confirm what Dotcom claims or simply don't comment.

Specifically, how can the news agency write the title "Mega denies" and be trusted?

Dotcom: "In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children." Mega: "Mega said that it has 13 percent of its shareholdings subject to two freezing orders.

On another side "The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud." (said by Dotcom) is not commented by Mega at all (unsurprisingly).

Maybe he just wants to piss off Hollywood and the people who took over Mega?