Did you consider that they're giving the employer all the value he's willing to pay for? Perhaps they reserve their best most energetic work for employers who pay energetically.
What if you don't want to spend your way to solvency.
Same question, different subjects: What if I don't want to pay the mortgage? What if I don't want to give money to the grocery store? What if I don't want to make the car payment?
Of course, the other part that needs to be acknowledged is that the business is profitable while paying that much. That is, the employees are producing enough value to cover their cost and turn a profit. It *IS* working right now. That indicates that while the 2nd or 3rd company doing it might not see the same sized boost, it wouldn't likely go under either.
Looking at Walmart's financials, they couldn't afford $75K, but they COULD manage at least a 20% boost all around. In other words, enough to get their employees off of food stamps.
The interesting part was the intense anger people with no connection with the company expressed. They actually took personal offense.
Nevertheless, acetaminophen causes more acute liver failure in the U.S. than all other causes combined. Why risk it when there are much safer and just as cheap and effective options?
Consider, for some people the required office visit and associated fees are the final bit that forces them to skimp on their needed insulin, hastening death.
How might you feel if you had to pay a doctor to get a permission slip to take air for treatment of your long-term oxygen dependence?
Actually, it is much easier to get meth than it is to get pseudoephedrine in some areas. It seems that the Mexican cartels have no problem getting massive bulk shipments of pseudoephedrine and since they already have their smuggling pipeline and sales channels set up, they have no problem getting it to a street corner near you. Yeah free trade!
So you're saying there's a bunch of perfectly functional adults out there who would totally dive into meth but since it's illegal, they are t-totalers?
John Bordne, a resident of Blakeslee, Penn., had to keep a personal history to himself for more than five decades. Only recently has the US Air Force given him permission to tell the tale, which, if borne out as true, would constitute a terrifying addition to the lengthy and already frightening list of mistakes and malfunctions that have nearly plunged the world into nuclear war.
So, it seems there was a permission process involved and it was only recently given. That would put everyone involved into the 70-90 year old range by now. Some are no doubt dead. Others just don't care anymore. Someone had to be the first to say something.
I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....
Which is exactly what Sony did. In your analogy, imagine the same make up artist posted her own picture of the model's face in her portfolio and you claimed to own the copyright on the make-up design.
The DMCA says they should restore the work upon reciept of a counter claim and that the claimant's next step if to file suit and get a court order if they want it to stay down. The Youtube process instead favors the claimant but gives big business an express lane to file claims.
BULLSHIT yourself. Please re-read TFA. Because Sony re-affirmed their claim, the actual owner of the video was unable to monitize it, but Sony was allowed to.
Now, when you eat that "BULLSHIT" you posted, would you like some salt or sugar?
Actually, it is pro big business. Note that the actual copyright owner is the one who got his work taken down and then couldn't get it back up because Sony "confirmed" that their (wrongful) claim was valid.
It makes sense to object to transfer metering. Gas, water, and electricity are metered based on what adds cost. There is no appreciable cost to transfer a byte of data. Maintaining the capacity to transfer data is what costs which is why non-consumer data is billed based on 95th percentile of the RATE.
Of course in that case, rational doctors should consider the new expensive drug (with no time in the market to prove itself) as second or third line options and start with the cheap well proven generics.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you consider that they're giving the employer all the value he's willing to pay for? Perhaps they reserve their best most energetic work for employers who pay energetically.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
What if you don't want to spend your way to solvency.
Same question, different subjects: What if I don't want to pay the mortgage? What if I don't want to give money to the grocery store? What if I don't want to make the car payment?
Of course, the other part that needs to be acknowledged is that the business is profitable while paying that much. That is, the employees are producing enough value to cover their cost and turn a profit. It *IS* working right now. That indicates that while the 2nd or 3rd company doing it might not see the same sized boost, it wouldn't likely go under either.
Looking at Walmart's financials, they couldn't afford $75K, but they COULD manage at least a 20% boost all around. In other words, enough to get their employees off of food stamps.
The interesting part was the intense anger people with no connection with the company expressed. They actually took personal offense.
Why the hell would I want a difficult job with real responsibilities?
Because shoveling shit is physically exhausting, smells bad, and offers no intellectual satisfaction.
Perhaps it isn't a problem for you. Count yourself fortunate but don't assume that it's true for everyone.
Nevertheless, acetaminophen causes more acute liver failure in the U.S. than all other causes combined. Why risk it when there are much safer and just as cheap and effective options?
Because the consequences of a single slip-up are WAY overblown, most chains err on the side of excessive caution.
Consider, for some people the required office visit and associated fees are the final bit that forces them to skimp on their needed insulin, hastening death.
How might you feel if you had to pay a doctor to get a permission slip to take air for treatment of your long-term oxygen dependence?
Actually, it is much easier to get meth than it is to get pseudoephedrine in some areas. It seems that the Mexican cartels have no problem getting massive bulk shipments of pseudoephedrine and since they already have their smuggling pipeline and sales channels set up, they have no problem getting it to a street corner near you. Yeah free trade!
So you're saying there's a bunch of perfectly functional adults out there who would totally dive into meth but since it's illegal, they are t-totalers?
Had those missiles launched, I doubt very much the Soviet Union would have presumed it was a mistake and forgiven the "little oopsie".
First paragraph of TFA:
John Bordne, a resident of Blakeslee, Penn., had to keep a personal history to himself for more than five decades. Only recently has the US Air Force given him permission to tell the tale, which, if borne out as true, would constitute a terrifying addition to the lengthy and already frightening list of mistakes and malfunctions that have nearly plunged the world into nuclear war.
So, it seems there was a permission process involved and it was only recently given. That would put everyone involved into the 70-90 year old range by now. Some are no doubt dead. Others just don't care anymore. Someone had to be the first to say something.
Now you're trying to twist your own damned analogy. Just quit digging while you can still see daylight.
Exactly.
I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....
Which is exactly what Sony did. In your analogy, imagine the same make up artist posted her own picture of the model's face in her portfolio and you claimed to own the copyright on the make-up design.
If they want to CYA, they shouldn't allow the claimant to monetize the work (explicitly stated that they did in TFA).
Fucking hell you are thick.
Raised by wolves? I should slap you and then I should slap your parents.
Now reread the thread and behold your own foolishness.
The DMCA says they should restore the work upon reciept of a counter claim and that the claimant's next step if to file suit and get a court order if they want it to stay down. The Youtube process instead favors the claimant but gives big business an express lane to file claims.
BULLSHIT yourself. Please re-read TFA. Because Sony re-affirmed their claim, the actual owner of the video was unable to monitize it, but Sony was allowed to.
Now, when you eat that "BULLSHIT" you posted, would you like some salt or sugar?
No, they were not correct. Sony did not own the copyright on the video they sent a notice on, they were merely a licensee.
Actually, it is pro big business. Note that the actual copyright owner is the one who got his work taken down and then couldn't get it back up because Sony "confirmed" that their (wrongful) claim was valid.
I imagine a decent chunk of that time was spent on inspection and repairs.
It was 80% complete when work halted. That likely means the walls were closed up and a roof was on.
It makes sense to object to transfer metering. Gas, water, and electricity are metered based on what adds cost. There is no appreciable cost to transfer a byte of data. Maintaining the capacity to transfer data is what costs which is why non-consumer data is billed based on 95th percentile of the RATE.
Of course in that case, rational doctors should consider the new expensive drug (with no time in the market to prove itself) as second or third line options and start with the cheap well proven generics.