How does it balance to the risk of charge backs, where I understand the retailer is shit out of luck, and the cost of securing the card readers, which seem to get compromised too often?
As I said, partially. The main driver was probably economic, better chances of good jobs for them and their kids and not being stuck in a society where it was quite hard to change your social status. Just your accent being enough to peg you. It was a lot easier to emigrate then as well. Different countries actually competing to get you to immigrate, at least if you were white Anglo-Saxon. They chose Canada and Canada gave them a grant in the form of an interest free loan to pay for the move.
Public relations. Both Apple and to a lesser extend Google have decided that globally it is better PR to fight to protect rights. This can change really quick as both companies are most interested in profit.
If you know and have talked with people that lived in the USSR in it's heyday, you know that she's right. People didn't have privacy in that society. When the concept of private property went out of style, so to did the concept of personal privacy - not just privacy from the government, but from others as well.
My parents left England partially due to the lack of privacy, not from the government but from the neighbours. While there is some small truth to the saying that if you have nothing to hide, the government won't bother you, that is not true for the common people who will shame you for the smallest transgression such as not keeping your steps well enough scrubbed.
We had a similar thing here in Canada. The government, a conservative authoritarian law, order and national security type, kept trying to push through spying laws, in particular forcing ISPs to keep all kinds of data and give it to the government for the asking, because you know, getting a search warrant is too much hassle. They started with the think of the children line and got a lot of push back when they called everyone child molesters, then tried the terrorist angle and still got enough push back to back down. Finally a 13 year old girl committed suicide due to online bullying and they managed to push through their law. The mother was on TV crying about as horrible as it was to lose her daughter, she did not want such an invasive law passed. It was quite uplifting to see a mother who lost her young daughter still completely supporting our right to privacy. Unluckily it also showed that the government can just keep trying to pass bad laws and the people will get tired of fighting it and eventually they'll succeed.
As the sibling post mentions, domestic cats are one of the largest killers of birds. Another big killer is windows. My living room window seems to kill about the same number of birds as my cat and it gets much worse with buildings that are mostly glass. I seem to remember some studies that locally the biggest killer of birds are the big non-native squirrels which love egg and baby bird and are having a population boom.
Postal address is Canadian, so yes. You can test by addressing your letter to Santa, North Pole, Canada, with a postal code of H0H 0H0 and get a reply.
Keep forgetting how it works in the States. Here all revenue from parking tickets, speeding and other violations under the motor vehicle act goes into the Provincial coffers so cities aren't motivated to ticket to collect revenue.
Good points. As I said, it is something that needs discussion, not that they should exist. And perhaps if the town i live in had parking meters I'd feel more strongly against them. The last time I dealt with meters, it was something like a nickel for half an hour, 40+ years ago. Still don't understand why parking meters wouldn't produce revenue if different people were feeding the meters then the parkee. Either way money is being put in. Anyways thanks for answering rather then marking me overrated as someone else seems to have done.
The city wasted tens of thousands of dollars pursuing something that was patently obvious to everyone:
1) Parking meters are a waste of time, 2) You can't force things on people if they really don't want it, and 3) You shouldn't be taxing something "just because you can"
It"s not obvious to me. The city has to pay for the streets and sidewalks, the businesses can't currently do it as they'd have to raise their prices, lose customers and go out of business. How to raise revenue is a problem for towns, at least around here. They don't have too many choices, mostly property tax and they have to keep the voters happy and compete with the neighbouring towns. Whether parking meters are a good way to raise revenue seems like something that needs to be discussed. Perhaps they are and perhaps they're not. Revenue needs to be raised for the town to operate and services can only be cut so far. The reaction of the town was totally unwarranted as it doesn't matter who pays the meters and paying forward is actually community like.
Besides the fact that they are not a baby till born, how is forcing life on an unwanted fetus, just to torture it not the ultimate sadistry? Usually it's the same people trying to force the unwanted into the world who go on about the their bad decisions, refusing to give them any slack and eventually wanting to execute them after a lifetime of torture. The saddest is that they often do it in the name of Christ, a person that if he was around today, the same arseholes would be cheering at his execution, and doubly cheering if it was done a slow way such as crucifixion. Bloody peace loving hippy that he was.
Just once I'd like to see an anti-abortionist promoting birth control or sex education instead of going on about how the child should suffer because the mother did a bad thing.
Personally, not liking the whole idea of abortion, I'd like to see as much done to prevent the need for it, including the consideration that the urge to have have sex is one of the strongest urges going.
All the treaties that are coming on line remove the safe harbour provisions of laws like the DMCA and I'm sure the rules will be that little people can't take down the big boys as they're the ones writing the laws and treaties.
I've started a diesel by rolling it down a big hill. Smokey at first but ran fine. Warm, my wife could push it on level ground and it would start. Previous owner had bypassed the fuel shutoff solenoid so as long as you didn't need lights, it didn't need electricity.
Seems to me that an alternator needs power to excite it, eg create a magnetic field to generate the electricity. Older cars had generators which had fixed magnets and ran fine without power. As a kid, our first car, a '37 Morris, was ran for the first year without a battery as we couldn't afford one. At least it had a crank. I know I totally drained a mid '80's Nissan trucks battery and it didn't start even rolling it down a small mountain. It was primitive enough that all it needed was spark as it should have started on the fuel in the float bowl
The problem is that the way the American law is written, any company that deals with Cuba becomes illegal in America so companies have to make a choice, give up the American market for the Cuban market or don't. Seems that most all companies value the American market more then the Cuban market
A believer in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy I see. There are branches of Conservationism that are very much big government, usually to impose Conservative values on the population. Conservative values include protecting property, often stolen from the commons, law and order, including stopping people doing things that Conservatives don't like, basically anything pleasurable. Religious values, taken to extremes in places like the extremely conservative middle east. And of course national security, including large armed forces and even overriding 1st amendment rights in the name of national security. Scalia probably interpreted the "Congress will make no law" part as Congress can make laws limiting speech in cases of national security rather then the correct Constitution needs amending to protect national security. Socialists also come in a mixed bag, from the socialist anarchist, through the socialist libertarian to the socialist big government that socialism has grown into in many cases. Interestingly Libertarianism was originally a left wing thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not true, back when modern copyright came to be, the publishers weren't incorporated, more of an exclusive guild, but they knew a good thing, buy the rights to a work for next to nothing and profit forever.
Right at the beginning of modern copyright, beginning of the 18th century, the publishers started on this thing about "for the artist" and even then they paid a tuppence for unlimited rights while going on about the starving artist. It was actually the unelected House of Lords that put their foot down, overrode the elected (bribed) House of Commons who were going to make copyright eternal and limited copyright to 14+14 years for the advancement of learning. When the first works fell out of copyright they went to the courts claiming copyright was a common law right. Luckily they lost that one.
Writing land deeds to remove land from the commons into private ownership is very profitable and can generate income indefinitely. You do have to do some maintenance though.
Meanwhile, aren't asshole politicians using copyright music during their campaigning, even against the express desires of the artists?
I heard one musician, think it was Randy Bachman, bitching because not only do they use his music (Taking Care of Business) without permission but then the campaign organization, who are responsible for all the shit that happens such as pirating music against the express wishes of the rights owner, goes bankrupt and is dissolved so there isn't even anyone to sue. One law for us and no law for them
95 years when the copyright is owned by a corporation IIRC, and face it, without that 95 year protection, Anne would never have written her diary due to lack of motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
How does it balance to the risk of charge backs, where I understand the retailer is shit out of luck, and the cost of securing the card readers, which seem to get compromised too often?
As I said, partially. The main driver was probably economic, better chances of good jobs for them and their kids and not being stuck in a society where it was quite hard to change your social status. Just your accent being enough to peg you.
It was a lot easier to emigrate then as well. Different countries actually competing to get you to immigrate, at least if you were white Anglo-Saxon. They chose Canada and Canada gave them a grant in the form of an interest free loan to pay for the move.
Public relations. Both Apple and to a lesser extend Google have decided that globally it is better PR to fight to protect rights.
This can change really quick as both companies are most interested in profit.
If you know and have talked with people that lived in the USSR in it's heyday, you know that she's right. People didn't have privacy in that society. When the concept of private property went out of style, so to did the concept of personal privacy - not just privacy from the government, but from others as well.
My parents left England partially due to the lack of privacy, not from the government but from the neighbours. While there is some small truth to the saying that if you have nothing to hide, the government won't bother you, that is not true for the common people who will shame you for the smallest transgression such as not keeping your steps well enough scrubbed.
We had a similar thing here in Canada. The government, a conservative authoritarian law, order and national security type, kept trying to push through spying laws, in particular forcing ISPs to keep all kinds of data and give it to the government for the asking, because you know, getting a search warrant is too much hassle.
They started with the think of the children line and got a lot of push back when they called everyone child molesters, then tried the terrorist angle and still got enough push back to back down. Finally a 13 year old girl committed suicide due to online bullying and they managed to push through their law. The mother was on TV crying about as horrible as it was to lose her daughter, she did not want such an invasive law passed.
It was quite uplifting to see a mother who lost her young daughter still completely supporting our right to privacy.
Unluckily it also showed that the government can just keep trying to pass bad laws and the people will get tired of fighting it and eventually they'll succeed.
As the sibling post mentions, domestic cats are one of the largest killers of birds. Another big killer is windows. My living room window seems to kill about the same number of birds as my cat and it gets much worse with buildings that are mostly glass.
I seem to remember some studies that locally the biggest killer of birds are the big non-native squirrels which love egg and baby bird and are having a population boom.
Postal address is Canadian, so yes. You can test by addressing your letter to Santa, North Pole, Canada, with a postal code of H0H 0H0 and get a reply.
Keep forgetting how it works in the States. Here all revenue from parking tickets, speeding and other violations under the motor vehicle act goes into the Provincial coffers so cities aren't motivated to ticket to collect revenue.
Good points. As I said, it is something that needs discussion, not that they should exist. And perhaps if the town i live in had parking meters I'd feel more strongly against them. The last time I dealt with meters, it was something like a nickel for half an hour, 40+ years ago.
Still don't understand why parking meters wouldn't produce revenue if different people were feeding the meters then the parkee. Either way money is being put in.
Anyways thanks for answering rather then marking me overrated as someone else seems to have done.
The city wasted tens of thousands of dollars pursuing something that was patently obvious to everyone:
1) Parking meters are a waste of time,
2) You can't force things on people if they really don't want it, and
3) You shouldn't be taxing something "just because you can"
It"s not obvious to me. The city has to pay for the streets and sidewalks, the businesses can't currently do it as they'd have to raise their prices, lose customers and go out of business. How to raise revenue is a problem for towns, at least around here. They don't have too many choices, mostly property tax and they have to keep the voters happy and compete with the neighbouring towns.
Whether parking meters are a good way to raise revenue seems like something that needs to be discussed. Perhaps they are and perhaps they're not. Revenue needs to be raised for the town to operate and services can only be cut so far.
The reaction of the town was totally unwarranted as it doesn't matter who pays the meters and paying forward is actually community like.
Besides the fact that they are not a baby till born, how is forcing life on an unwanted fetus, just to torture it not the ultimate sadistry?
Usually it's the same people trying to force the unwanted into the world who go on about the their bad decisions, refusing to give them any slack and eventually wanting to execute them after a lifetime of torture. The saddest is that they often do it in the name of Christ, a person that if he was around today, the same arseholes would be cheering at his execution, and doubly cheering if it was done a slow way such as crucifixion. Bloody peace loving hippy that he was.
Just once I'd like to see an anti-abortionist promoting birth control or sex education instead of going on about how the child should suffer because the mother did a bad thing.
Personally, not liking the whole idea of abortion, I'd like to see as much done to prevent the need for it, including the consideration that the urge to have have sex is one of the strongest urges going.
All the treaties that are coming on line remove the safe harbour provisions of laws like the DMCA and I'm sure the rules will be that little people can't take down the big boys as they're the ones writing the laws and treaties.
Then the law will be changed so that only registered media companies can issue take down notices.
Alternators generally initially need power to generate a magnetic field to generate power.
I've started a diesel by rolling it down a big hill. Smokey at first but ran fine. Warm, my wife could push it on level ground and it would start. Previous owner had bypassed the fuel shutoff solenoid so as long as you didn't need lights, it didn't need electricity.
Seems to me that an alternator needs power to excite it, eg create a magnetic field to generate the electricity. Older cars had generators which had fixed magnets and ran fine without power. As a kid, our first car, a '37 Morris, was ran for the first year without a battery as we couldn't afford one. At least it had a crank.
I know I totally drained a mid '80's Nissan trucks battery and it didn't start even rolling it down a small mountain. It was primitive enough that all it needed was spark as it should have started on the fuel in the float bowl
The problem is that the way the American law is written, any company that deals with Cuba becomes illegal in America so companies have to make a choice, give up the American market for the Cuban market or don't. Seems that most all companies value the American market more then the Cuban market
A believer in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy I see. There are branches of Conservationism that are very much big government, usually to impose Conservative values on the population. Conservative values include protecting property, often stolen from the commons, law and order, including stopping people doing things that Conservatives don't like, basically anything pleasurable. Religious values, taken to extremes in places like the extremely conservative middle east. And of course national security, including large armed forces and even overriding 1st amendment rights in the name of national security. Scalia probably interpreted the "Congress will make no law" part as Congress can make laws limiting speech in cases of national security rather then the correct Constitution needs amending to protect national security.
Socialists also come in a mixed bag, from the socialist anarchist, through the socialist libertarian to the socialist big government that socialism has grown into in many cases. Interestingly Libertarianism was originally a left wing thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You'd have to be pretty far right to call Franco a left winger.
Under Dutch law and many other countries laws, it is public domain, or do you think that Anne Frank needs the money?
Not true, back when modern copyright came to be, the publishers weren't incorporated, more of an exclusive guild, but they knew a good thing, buy the rights to a work for next to nothing and profit forever.
Right at the beginning of modern copyright, beginning of the 18th century, the publishers started on this thing about "for the artist" and even then they paid a tuppence for unlimited rights while going on about the starving artist.
It was actually the unelected House of Lords that put their foot down, overrode the elected (bribed) House of Commons who were going to make copyright eternal and limited copyright to 14+14 years for the advancement of learning.
When the first works fell out of copyright they went to the courts claiming copyright was a common law right. Luckily they lost that one.
Writing land deeds to remove land from the commons into private ownership is very profitable and can generate income indefinitely. You do have to do some maintenance though.
Meanwhile, aren't asshole politicians using copyright music during their campaigning, even against the express desires of the artists?
I heard one musician, think it was Randy Bachman, bitching because not only do they use his music (Taking Care of Business) without permission but then the campaign organization, who are responsible for all the shit that happens such as pirating music against the express wishes of the rights owner, goes bankrupt and is dissolved so there isn't even anyone to sue.
One law for us and no law for them
95 years when the copyright is owned by a corporation IIRC, and face it, without that 95 year protection, Anne would never have written her diary due to lack of motivation.