Localities that allow sub-leasing usually require some agreement between the owner and the renter. The purpose of the sub-lease is that the tenant will vacate temporarily but will return and does not want to lose the right to rent (especially in the case of rent control). This does not cover the AirBnB case of leaving for the weekend and hoping to make some fast cash in secret. The renter must inform the owner or landlord or manager and they must give consent first. Sometimes there is a reasonable consent clause, but of course that is not automatic and you must sue if you think the landlord was wrong for not allowing the sublease. If you don't seek permission from the owner then they have every right to toss you out if the original rental agreement had conditions regarding sub leases (and in many places they have this right even if it's not in writing).
There is no analogy to wholesale. With the retail market you are buying the product outright, at which point you can destroy it if you like, give it away, etc. You are not buying a room from the landlord, you are only renting it. A closer analogy is contracting versus sub-contracting with builders or professionals.
A right to do what? Let complete strangers live in someone else's propery without their permission? "Who the hell are you?" "Dude, I'm living here for two weeks, I'm a friend of Joe's." "Joe? Who the hell is Joe?" "You know, he's one of the 10 people leasing the place from Bob." "Bob? Who's Bob? I rented the place to John!"
Such rights where they exist are for the purpose of keeping the tenant in the apartment despite a leave of absence for some reason or other. Especially in cases where there is rent control. Ie, tentant has to leave for 6 months for a work assignment. In some places the tenant must inform the landlord, name the person getting the sublease, affirm that the original tenant will return, get agreement from other co-tentants, etc. But the landlord must always know who is living at the property. This is not the AirBnB model.
Also, don't confuse sub-leases with assignment of leases, or getting roommates, etc.
Every single rental agreement I every used always forbid subletting. The was the number one thing they would point out to make sure no one made any mistakes. Some other places I did not rent did allow subleases but you had to get a sublease form filled out and approved. Landlords do not want strangers staying in their properties without having a legal agreement.
This is not about money, the "cut" does not matter. What matters is that it is NOT the renter's property.
Look at it like a rental auto. You can not let any of your friends drive your rental, even if the rental agency is getting a "cut".
I once got a spoiler for The Sixth Sense from the local newspaper, before the movie was even out on video. Apparently these reporters think that everyone sees a movie within the first few weeks or they'll never see it.
I have also seen these spoiler trolls. There was a tee-shirt I saw worn by someone in a group photo for some charity event, which read "Hermione Dies". This was after the last book was out but before the movie. I spent half the day pounding my head against the wall (or at least it felt that way). Push myself to forget.. forget... forget... damn it doesn't work that way... Before someone gets mad at me, that spoiler may or may not have been correct, it was designed only to piss poeple off; it pisses them off before they even know if it's true or a hoax, it pisses them off if it turns out to be true, it pisses them off if it turns out to be wrong.
And it's not just Reddit. The Steam forums for Fallout 4 was busy banning people who were posting about what they claimed to have seen in pre-release copies, and were busy banning for a few weeks after it came out. And yesterday they were banning posters with Star Wars spoilers too.
It's the lulz. Anyone who does stuff for the lulz should have their computers smashed by Jesse Venture who's wearing a unitard that reads "For The Lulz".
If you don't have the will of the people at the smallest local government then you will not have the will of the people anywhere. Are you suggesting that the democratic experiment be abandoned and we go back to having a distant remote dictator decide how things should be? The best time for the will of the people to be exerted is at the local level; you can walk to town hall and speak your mind, you can personally tell all the voters how corrupt the politicians are and ask them to vote for someone else, you know everyone and they know you. You have a direct say in the matter, even if you don't get your way in the end.
So why should some ultra libertarian idealogue say "you're doing it wrong, I refuse to let you vote yourself new taxes, so I will ask the state to remove your power of self determination."? Sure, that's ok if they're breaking fundamental rights or the constitution at the local level, like the feds disallowing slavery or institutionalized racism, but to disallow taxation with representation against the will of the people is absurd.
This is more from the ultra anti-tax libertarian wing, which isn't restricted to Republicans. They are essentially idealogues. They have a warped vision of utopia and they won't let things like democracy stand in the what they think is best for the people. Municipal broadband would use public funds, ie, taxes, and so to them this is the ultimate evil. They want to protect naive voters who don't follow their utopian vision from giving local government the power to use taxes.
The only reason they're aligned with Republicans is because we've got a defacto two party system and they have to align with one of the two if they want to achieve any goals. And also because they're too extremist for the official Libertarian Party.
Municipal broadband *IS* competition. The reason some people unrelated to cable companies hate this is because they see any and all government as evil because of a perverted ideology. So they ask the bigger state governments to trod on the smaller municipal governments all in the name of restricting government.
If municipal government is too big, and the voters in a municipality are unable to control that big government at the ballot box, then they're effectively claiming that the democratic experiment has failed utterly. But that's not true, democracy is still alive, the voters are able to direct their local governments, and it's just anti government hysteria that promotes this idea. They're so indoctrinated with this perverted logic that they would rather the worst internet in the world than to admit that they could be wrong, and they even violate their own ideals by appealing to big government in their battle against small government.
Oh my god, tax payer funds might be used, the horror, the horror! We must protect the voters from themselves by nullifying their votes!
Resonance comes when a force matches a natural frequence in an object. The bridge normally did resonate and it had a resonant frequency. It normally oscillated along its length though, rather than twisting. The higher winds when it collapsed were stronger but also very gusty. If it was just resonance then it should have resonated at its normal frequency, perhaps with greater amplitude, but still oscillating up and down along the length of the span. The twisting motion was an oscillation but not at a resonant frequency of the bridge.
It's like blowing along the width of a ribbon. Get it just right and you get a hum of a specific pitch, which can vary depending upon tension or length of the ribbon. But when it is not humming because you're blowing too hard or not aiming just right you get a flapping and fluttering instead. Which is what the movies of that bridge collapsed showed, which were unlike the earlier movies.
Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox, but from Google. Rapid fire unnecessary updates unrelated to security, dropping of support for plugins, development oriented towards developers rather than users, frequent kissing of advertising butts, etc.
What's wrong with acting exactly like how the older product worked? Newer is not better. A web browser is simple, it doesn't need biweekly changes to its UI. the old Netscape was just fine. Web browser as an application platform is the dumb idea. DRM in browsers is a dumb idea.
If firefox goes away then there is literally nothing left. A browser must support adblock and noscript, as well as general purpose plugins.
We've had lots of Republican governors. California is very solidly purple through and through. Silicon Valley is mostly liberal though with enclaves of extremely wealthy people interested in a government that helps them keep it. It is nowhere as nearly conservative or libertarian as Orange Country for instance. Libertarians may be more common than normal in Silicon Valley than elsewhere, but they're still uncommon.
True. How much of that charity is to non-religious and non political groups, and how much of that goes to minority groups? It sort of balances out. Also the US tends to give much more to charity overall than many other countries. Possibly because we have fewer safety nets in place than in other countries. The vast majority of our taxes goes to the military (basically a gigantic jobs program, so it's kind of like a charity).
In practice this doesn't work. The third party is often paid for by both parties; this means the consumer pays a large amount relative to their income compared to the amount paid for by the corporation. The intent here is to scare away the consumer. Why bother with the headaches if you're just trying to get $100 back? Some agreements (I've seen this in employment contracts but I haven't checked consumer agreements) where either party can appeal a judgement by paying for additional arbitration, with no limit on how many appeals are allowed. Thus the party with the deepest pockets will always win if they want to win. And these agreements often forbid the consumer from using the legal system (ie, they must use arbitration if they want to be a customer).
Though yes, it may be cheaper for them to just pay the $100, but that's hardly a sound basis upon which to replace the existing legal framework from the government by a new legal system controlled by the corporations.
Class action suits protect the consumer but they are a nightmare for the corporations. This is why corporations are undermining the legal system and why they spend so much PR effort to fool actual citizens that class action suits are bad. Corporations want to be able to cheat the consumers for $20 each with impunity knowing that the vast majority won't respond, and they're getting away with it. Yes, there are some bad class action lawsuits, but that should not be reason to discard the whole system that can balance the power of corporations against individual citizens.
This anti class action is also paired up with the requirement to use an arbitration system instead of the legal system. Arbitration is fine, if it is voluntary. Too many of these contracts require the arbitration though. This is the part that the courts should overturn if they had any sense of decency left.
The question is, how many non-violent methods remain available to citizens in order to redress the wrongs committed by corporations?
We don't have a government that represents the people, what we have is a government composed of people elected to be representatives. Which means that we are subject to the horrors of obtaining the government we deserve if our voters don't pay attention.
You are forbidden in the customer agreements from using any legal process other than what the corporations allow you to use. Ie, binding arbitration. You can not sue, you can not file a claim, you can not win. If binding arbitration somehow decides in favor of the consumer then these arbitration agreements often have additional fine print that either side may request additional arbitration with costs shared between the two parties.
Most of these small claims are not worth the time unless it's class action. Who wastes time going to small claims court over $20? But one hundred thousand consumers all suing over $20 and the corporation will take notice. Which is the primary reason that corporations have insisted that class action must be disallowed, and why they have spent so much money on their "tort reform" agenda by convincing people that class action is bad and an example of a legal system run amuck. Classic astroturfing.
Slashdot Mirror
Localities that allow sub-leasing usually require some agreement between the owner and the renter. The purpose of the sub-lease is that the tenant will vacate temporarily but will return and does not want to lose the right to rent (especially in the case of rent control). This does not cover the AirBnB case of leaving for the weekend and hoping to make some fast cash in secret. The renter must inform the owner or landlord or manager and they must give consent first. Sometimes there is a reasonable consent clause, but of course that is not automatic and you must sue if you think the landlord was wrong for not allowing the sublease. If you don't seek permission from the owner then they have every right to toss you out if the original rental agreement had conditions regarding sub leases (and in many places they have this right even if it's not in writing).
There is no analogy to wholesale. With the retail market you are buying the product outright, at which point you can destroy it if you like, give it away, etc. You are not buying a room from the landlord, you are only renting it. A closer analogy is contracting versus sub-contracting with builders or professionals.
A right to do what? Let complete strangers live in someone else's propery without their permission?
"Who the hell are you?"
"Dude, I'm living here for two weeks, I'm a friend of Joe's."
"Joe? Who the hell is Joe?"
"You know, he's one of the 10 people leasing the place from Bob."
"Bob? Who's Bob? I rented the place to John!"
Such rights where they exist are for the purpose of keeping the tenant in the apartment despite a leave of absence for some reason or other. Especially in cases where there is rent control. Ie, tentant has to leave for 6 months for a work assignment. In some places the tenant must inform the landlord, name the person getting the sublease, affirm that the original tenant will return, get agreement from other co-tentants, etc. But the landlord must always know who is living at the property. This is not the AirBnB model.
Also, don't confuse sub-leases with assignment of leases, or getting roommates, etc.
Every single rental agreement I every used always forbid subletting. The was the number one thing they would point out to make sure no one made any mistakes. Some other places I did not rent did allow subleases but you had to get a sublease form filled out and approved. Landlords do not want strangers staying in their properties without having a legal agreement.
This is not about money, the "cut" does not matter. What matters is that it is NOT the renter's property.
Look at it like a rental auto. You can not let any of your friends drive your rental, even if the rental agency is getting a "cut".
15 Million Merits. Keep cycling.
I once got a spoiler for The Sixth Sense from the local newspaper, before the movie was even out on video. Apparently these reporters think that everyone sees a movie within the first few weeks or they'll never see it.
I have also seen these spoiler trolls. There was a tee-shirt I saw worn by someone in a group photo for some charity event, which read "Hermione Dies". This was after the last book was out but before the movie. I spent half the day pounding my head against the wall (or at least it felt that way). Push myself to forget.. forget... forget... damn it doesn't work that way... Before someone gets mad at me, that spoiler may or may not have been correct, it was designed only to piss poeple off; it pisses them off before they even know if it's true or a hoax, it pisses them off if it turns out to be true, it pisses them off if it turns out to be wrong.
And it's not just Reddit. The Steam forums for Fallout 4 was busy banning people who were posting about what they claimed to have seen in pre-release copies, and were busy banning for a few weeks after it came out. And yesterday they were banning posters with Star Wars spoilers too.
It's the lulz. Anyone who does stuff for the lulz should have their computers smashed by Jesse Venture who's wearing a unitard that reads "For The Lulz".
If you don't have the will of the people at the smallest local government then you will not have the will of the people anywhere. Are you suggesting that the democratic experiment be abandoned and we go back to having a distant remote dictator decide how things should be? The best time for the will of the people to be exerted is at the local level; you can walk to town hall and speak your mind, you can personally tell all the voters how corrupt the politicians are and ask them to vote for someone else, you know everyone and they know you. You have a direct say in the matter, even if you don't get your way in the end.
So why should some ultra libertarian idealogue say "you're doing it wrong, I refuse to let you vote yourself new taxes, so I will ask the state to remove your power of self determination."? Sure, that's ok if they're breaking fundamental rights or the constitution at the local level, like the feds disallowing slavery or institutionalized racism, but to disallow taxation with representation against the will of the people is absurd.
Show her some high tech equipment and say "these are the products your company used to make before you sold it all off in order to make ink instead."
The tweet was very mooving.
But we have to save a handful of potential victims, never mind the thousand and thousands of victims of auto accidents... Quick, distract the people!
Corporations are the government now. The only votes that matter are on the corporate boards.
This is more from the ultra anti-tax libertarian wing, which isn't restricted to Republicans. They are essentially idealogues. They have a warped vision of utopia and they won't let things like democracy stand in the what they think is best for the people. Municipal broadband would use public funds, ie, taxes, and so to them this is the ultimate evil. They want to protect naive voters who don't follow their utopian vision from giving local government the power to use taxes.
The only reason they're aligned with Republicans is because we've got a defacto two party system and they have to align with one of the two if they want to achieve any goals. And also because they're too extremist for the official Libertarian Party.
Municipal broadband *IS* competition. The reason some people unrelated to cable companies hate this is because they see any and all government as evil because of a perverted ideology. So they ask the bigger state governments to trod on the smaller municipal governments all in the name of restricting government.
If municipal government is too big, and the voters in a municipality are unable to control that big government at the ballot box, then they're effectively claiming that the democratic experiment has failed utterly. But that's not true, democracy is still alive, the voters are able to direct their local governments, and it's just anti government hysteria that promotes this idea. They're so indoctrinated with this perverted logic that they would rather the worst internet in the world than to admit that they could be wrong, and they even violate their own ideals by appealing to big government in their battle against small government.
Oh my god, tax payer funds might be used, the horror, the horror! We must protect the voters from themselves by nullifying their votes!
I'm all for fixing the security problems. Moving stuff around on the UI has nothing to do with security.
Which is why there you so seldomly run across Professor Anonymous Coward in any physics department.
Resonance comes when a force matches a natural frequence in an object. The bridge normally did resonate and it had a resonant frequency. It normally oscillated along its length though, rather than twisting. The higher winds when it collapsed were stronger but also very gusty. If it was just resonance then it should have resonated at its normal frequency, perhaps with greater amplitude, but still oscillating up and down along the length of the span. The twisting motion was an oscillation but not at a resonant frequency of the bridge.
It's like blowing along the width of a ribbon. Get it just right and you get a hum of a specific pitch, which can vary depending upon tension or length of the ribbon. But when it is not humming because you're blowing too hard or not aiming just right you get a flapping and fluttering instead. Which is what the movies of that bridge collapsed showed, which were unlike the earlier movies.
Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox, but from Google. Rapid fire unnecessary updates unrelated to security, dropping of support for plugins, development oriented towards developers rather than users, frequent kissing of advertising butts, etc.
What's wrong with acting exactly like how the older product worked? Newer is not better. A web browser is simple, it doesn't need biweekly changes to its UI. the old Netscape was just fine. Web browser as an application platform is the dumb idea. DRM in browsers is a dumb idea.
If firefox goes away then there is literally nothing left. A browser must support adblock and noscript, as well as general purpose plugins.
I suspect "universal" does not include OSX, Linux, iPhone, BSD, Android, etc.
We've had lots of Republican governors. California is very solidly purple through and through. Silicon Valley is mostly liberal though with enclaves of extremely wealthy people interested in a government that helps them keep it. It is nowhere as nearly conservative or libertarian as Orange Country for instance. Libertarians may be more common than normal in Silicon Valley than elsewhere, but they're still uncommon.
True. How much of that charity is to non-religious and non political groups, and how much of that goes to minority groups? It sort of balances out. Also the US tends to give much more to charity overall than many other countries. Possibly because we have fewer safety nets in place than in other countries. The vast majority of our taxes goes to the military (basically a gigantic jobs program, so it's kind of like a charity).
And has the supreme court spoken on this? It seems that legal theory does not always match reality.
In practice this doesn't work. The third party is often paid for by both parties; this means the consumer pays a large amount relative to their income compared to the amount paid for by the corporation. The intent here is to scare away the consumer. Why bother with the headaches if you're just trying to get $100 back? Some agreements (I've seen this in employment contracts but I haven't checked consumer agreements) where either party can appeal a judgement by paying for additional arbitration, with no limit on how many appeals are allowed. Thus the party with the deepest pockets will always win if they want to win. And these agreements often forbid the consumer from using the legal system (ie, they must use arbitration if they want to be a customer).
Though yes, it may be cheaper for them to just pay the $100, but that's hardly a sound basis upon which to replace the existing legal framework from the government by a new legal system controlled by the corporations.
Class action suits protect the consumer but they are a nightmare for the corporations. This is why corporations are undermining the legal system and why they spend so much PR effort to fool actual citizens that class action suits are bad. Corporations want to be able to cheat the consumers for $20 each with impunity knowing that the vast majority won't respond, and they're getting away with it. Yes, there are some bad class action lawsuits, but that should not be reason to discard the whole system that can balance the power of corporations against individual citizens.
This anti class action is also paired up with the requirement to use an arbitration system instead of the legal system. Arbitration is fine, if it is voluntary. Too many of these contracts require the arbitration though. This is the part that the courts should overturn if they had any sense of decency left.
The question is, how many non-violent methods remain available to citizens in order to redress the wrongs committed by corporations?
We don't have a government that represents the people, what we have is a government composed of people elected to be representatives. Which means that we are subject to the horrors of obtaining the government we deserve if our voters don't pay attention.
You are forbidden in the customer agreements from using any legal process other than what the corporations allow you to use. Ie, binding arbitration. You can not sue, you can not file a claim, you can not win. If binding arbitration somehow decides in favor of the consumer then these arbitration agreements often have additional fine print that either side may request additional arbitration with costs shared between the two parties.
Most of these small claims are not worth the time unless it's class action. Who wastes time going to small claims court over $20? But one hundred thousand consumers all suing over $20 and the corporation will take notice. Which is the primary reason that corporations have insisted that class action must be disallowed, and why they have spent so much money on their "tort reform" agenda by convincing people that class action is bad and an example of a legal system run amuck. Classic astroturfing.