Sentences with phrase «thought about any of my cases»

Thereafter, I never thought about any of my cases the same way.

Not exact matches

If you're thinking about taking a risk, just the mental processing of, «OK what is the worst case scenario?»

In these cases, eventually you get to a bad result - either because no deal gets done or - far worse - because the entrepreneur grudgingly and half - heartedly accepts a deal that he's unhappy with and angry about for what he thinks is the good of the business.

At Canadian Business, we like to think our crew of merry writers and editors hovers closer to that 80 % cohort — but we're about to find out if that's really the case.

Asked to make a case for the work of short sellers like himself, Muddy Waters» Block said in an e-mail to Canadian Business: «We think the real estate crisis [in the U.S.] could have been less severe had short - sellers felt comfortable enough to speak publicly about the problems they found with subprime lenders.

You might think it would have been easy to write about news makers and «the news of the day» but that was not always the case, especially when I was assigned a low interest, low visual, low emotional story about something like a county drainage proposal, rezoning considerations or tax easement issue.

We all get a case of the Mondays from time to time, but if even thinking about your job fills you with dread, it's probably time to leave.

In that case, the academics could be making the all - too - common mistake of «proving» an adage by using the same evidence that was used to bring about that line of thinking.

In that case, «You need to think about what the role requires (a broad range of skills, including financial, consultative, planning, interpersonal and influencing skills) and then pick the right person for the role.

«I am one of the only students with a science background who also has significant startup experience, so I think that brings a very different view to our case discussions when we talk about making decisions using very little data,» she said.

Asked by a committee member about the terms of the GSR App not specifying that the data would be used for political targeting, he said he didn't write the terms himself but added: «If we had to do it again I think I would have insisted to Mr Wylie that we do add politics as a use - case in that doc.»

In a hearing on June 7, Alsup also told Waymo that it should «think a lot about just dropping the patent part of this case.»

Generally, apps aren't placing their fine print front and center when we're using them, nor are they priming us to think too hard about what the long - term or large - scale ramifications of providing our data — and in this case, our friends» data — could be.

The description above is one of the ways in which it can evolve, and because I think this is probably the best - case scenario, I thought it might prove useful as a way of framing thinking about the adjustment process for China.

Mr. Case said he would only succeed in changing the way investors think about the rest of the country if he can produce significant financial success stories.

Advertising to non-fans instead of building a fan base and then engaging them sounded like a dangerous plan at first, and I think it's very (very) important that your readers know that you're only talking about advertising to reach a highly targeted group of people (which in your case means website vistors).

It's time to think about the bigger impact of technology on the fabric of society, and not just your personal case.

This post about the Suzuki - Pembina report is a case in point: both sides of the debate seemed to think that I was offering aid and succor to the cause of the climate change deniers.

There was a lot of buzz, people were talking about it, they were wondering what it could do, and in many cases it was hyped up more than it should be — from then on I think there's been a slight fall.

So regardless of what you think about the probabilities, we need to be prepared for the possibilities, including the worst case.»

What are your thoughts about buying XIN vs. EFA especially in the case of an RSP where the dividend payment method for XIN (capital adjustment) does you no good?

Because non-disclosure is the easiest defense for an insurance company to raise in these cases, particularly in the context of transaction - specific insurance, policyholders must start thinking about this issue from the outset.

Thorp may have thought that this added a protective layer of redundancy to his business as he often thought deeply about worst case scenario planning in nearly all aspects of his business.

And it just goes to show a lot of people's edge, and in his case, I think, for example, is that is his ability to stick to his system, you know, much like you talk about in blackjack where he says, «Look, this is what I do and realize there's gonna be times of underperformance,» and not changing his whole approach when markets are down or he's doing poorly.

It might seem counterintuitive, but before you even think about tackling any debt, make sure you have some money socked away to cover necessary living expenses in case of an emergency.

So in the case of the financial crisis, yes, what I knew about the depression and about financial panics prior to the depression was actually very helpful conceptually for thinking about this panic.

The institutional imperative in this case is the emphasis and importance that publicly traded companies place on what Wall Street analysts think about the stock price of their company.

«Some of us when we walk into schools we always think about where we want to sit and where is the safest place is for us to sit in case an active shooter was to come in,» Ahmed said.

What do you think about this case of a state employee secretly setting up a cryptocurrency mining operation at work?

Nice to know more about it, though i heard about it on the surface of intenet never thought of opting for it since there are so many similar cases gone with the wind.

3) The discussion about scaling vs. keeping it small is a very interesting one: I liked that the author presented real - life cases for either scenarios for food for thought instead of advocating one or the other (e.g. presenting a single «formula» as the golden rule that all shall follow)-- I can see how this particular decision can be case sensitive and there really is no «right» answer as long as it works for the entrepreneur!

And in some instances, it has been Scalia and Thomas who have done so more than those who may think of themselves less as originalists (in one recent case in particular Scalia and Thomas dissented from the majority which held that convicted child molesters could be indefinitely imprisoned despite having fully served their sentences based on subtle shifts of language and the over-application of prior case law — no one wants a child molester free and about, but such results focused outcomes are always dangerous).

In the case of compulsive hand - washing, this involved a patient acknowledging that his hands were in fact clean (relabeling); attributing anxieties and doubts about his hands being dirty to a misfunctioning brain (reattributing); directing his thoughts and actions away from handwashing and toward productive ends (refocusing); and, lastly, understanding at a deep level the senselessness of OCD messages (revaluing).

To the ancient Greeks, who thought about these things, this seemed to be much more clearly the case with what they called the «musical arts,» the arts of poetry, dancing, music, and acting.

If you think about it, if this were the case for the entirety of the world, it wouldnt be so bad to live in.

If this is the case, then, given what Warfield says about professionalization and faith healing, it seems he does think that it introduces a Catholic view of the priesthood into Protestantism.

And in doing so, they'd gotten stuck inside what Polish philosopher Wojciech Chudy, an intellectual great - grandson of John Paul II, called the post-Kantian «trap of reflection»: thinking - about - thinking - about - thinking, rather than thinking about reality — in this case, the Gospel and its truths.

Driscoll is a textbook case of someone who thinks that his ability to attract a following means that he's right about everything, or at least MORE right than anybody who hasn't been able to attract a following.

In the case of the creation story you must read it as if you were a hunter / gatherer (caveman) who did not have a concept of time (no watches, no calendars, most likely someone who didn't keep track of how old he was — think about indigenous peoples who had no contact with western civilization until the 20th century).

What I love about this is, the awesome thought that blood was shed in this case to birth something rather than in the second instance to supposedly fix the problem of sin.

We have of late years heard much about the unity of the NT, and to that we will in the end come; but there is a strong case for thinking sometimes of the diversity of the NT.

If we think of «theory» as the forming of generalizations or synoptic judgments and think of «practice» as requiring judgments about particular cases, then inquiry guided by these three types of questions will always require capacities for doing both.

I am speaking of... what every one must know in his own case: how difficult it is to command himself, and do what he wishes to do; how weak the governing principle of his mind is, and how poorly and imperfectly he comes up to his own notions of right and truth; how difficult it is to command his feelings, grief, anger, impatience, joy, fear; how difficult to govern his own tongue, to say just what he would; how difficult to rouse himself to do what he would, at this time or that; how difficult to rise in the morning; how difficult to go about his duties and not be idle; how difficult to eat and drink just what he should, how difficult to regulate his thoughts through the day; how difficult to keep out of his mind what should be kept out of it.

While I'm not inclined to ascribe motive in this case and prefer to give Ham the benefit of the doubt that he holds his position because his conscience demands it, I think these folks bring up a good point about how we can become so heavily invested in a certain ideology that change comes at enormous cost.

In any case it was probably inevitable that Bultmann's pupils (such as Günther Bornkamm)-- while accepting his negative verdicts that Jesus did not think of himself as Messiah, Son of God, or Son of Man — should refuse to accept the dispiriting embargo on all discussion about how Jesus did regard himself, and refuse as well to accept the excessively rigorous skepticism about the facts behind the Gospels» literary forms.

In Gall's case, this juxtaposition not only reduces philosophy and theology to mere «bluster,» thereby liberating us to act without thinking seriously; it suggests that none of the consequences that follow from, for example, the codification of same - sex marriage — the redefinition of kinship, the irrevocable technologizing of human «reproduction,» further expansion of the «new eugenics,» deliberate creation of three - parent households, and least of all, the fate of children conceived in this brave new world — even provoke questions of human import worth thinking seriously about.

I have described this as a case of thinking things through about education, getting clear about what we hope to accomplish and how we might best go about it.

We may pretend, as in the case of the boss, in - laws or potential customer that we care what they think, but in the end we really care about what anyone says or thinks only if we know they care about us.

The result can be the emergence of a new dominant idea (the idea of «covenant» in the Puritan case), a new model or metaphor for thinking about moral obligations (contractarian metaphors in Lockean theory), or a new form underlying the relations among ideological elements (individual conscience as a decoupling mechanism).

Why don't you read up on it instead joining the crowd of idiots who know nothing about the case and think he's innocent because he wears glasses and a few racist blacks think he didn't do it because he's black.