It's not the advertisements that tend to make people link to the print version, it's when they spread the article out over several pages. I don't mind advertisements at all, but I hate the online equivalent of turning to several different newspaper pages to finish a single article.
I agree. What a terrible prediction. Facebook trying to make it easy to exchange Facebook credits for currency doesn't make it a bank in any way that a normal person would consider a bank. They don't offer credit lines. People aren't sending money to each other through it. They're not even at PayPal levels of bank functionality.
We're required to report unpaid sales taxes (for purchases made out-of-state, like from Amazon, for use in-state) on our yearly state income tax return forms. It's supposed to be collected at tax time for out-of-state purchases, since out-of-state businesses aren't required to do the legwork of collecting it.
Well what motivation would they have to create if they couldn't be assured that their ancestors will be able to make money off of it until the heat-death of the universe?
I presume you're implying that they'll invent time-travel, and that will in turn require the use of very strange verb conjugations.
The rigor also is only useful for negative results. For positive results, rigor is unnecessary; if you aim to prove that something is possible, and you can make it happen, then it's possible.
Similarly: Just because I'm driving the speed limit, I stay between the lines, my registration's up to date, and I'm not under the influence of any drugs, it doesn't mean I'm comfortable having a police car right behind me for 10 miles. I try to look for the first non-suspicious location to get out of the way.
In the US, your wealth probably plays in a lot more (i.e. can you afford the surgery?)
It's actually, "Can you afford the private jet to make yourself a possible candidate in a wider area given the short life of donor organs?" Same idea, though.
I would have to accept it. I'd then find another job where I consider it worth my while, or find a way to make myself worth higher pay to my employer. Nobody has an implicit right for things to stay the same. Only explicit contracts provide that.
Nobody has the right to be paid. Someone has to decide to pay you for what you're offering. If your offering isn't worth the cost, people won't pay it.
Because it destroys small businesses and seriously hurts medium sized business.
If a small-to-medium business's leadership has chosen an unsustainable business model that's disconnected from reality, then it's their own fault if the business goes under. There can be new businesses if a given model doesn't work out. That's how our economic system works.
You have to admit that copyright infringement is a major problem that needs to be handled one way or another.
Why? If people create content regardless of copyright infringement, which is the purpose of copyright, I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.
Why does that need to be a crime? I could understand being charged with your complicity in the trampling deaths (say, some degree of negligent manslaughter), but why should yelling fire itself be criminal? That just sets up the government to decide other things are also illegal to say.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the advertisements that tend to make people link to the print version, it's when they spread the article out over several pages. I don't mind advertisements at all, but I hate the online equivalent of turning to several different newspaper pages to finish a single article.
NZL is the 3-character country code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3
I agree. What a terrible prediction. Facebook trying to make it easy to exchange Facebook credits for currency doesn't make it a bank in any way that a normal person would consider a bank. They don't offer credit lines. People aren't sending money to each other through it. They're not even at PayPal levels of bank functionality.
We're required to report unpaid sales taxes (for purchases made out-of-state, like from Amazon, for use in-state) on our yearly state income tax return forms. It's supposed to be collected at tax time for out-of-state purchases, since out-of-state businesses aren't required to do the legwork of collecting it.
Think of our states like countries in the EU. That's how our system was originally set up.
Well what motivation would they have to create if they couldn't be assured that their ancestors will be able to make money off of it until the heat-death of the universe?
I presume you're implying that they'll invent time-travel, and that will in turn require the use of very strange verb conjugations.
It's been a long time since I laughed at a grammar joke.
The rigor also is only useful for negative results. For positive results, rigor is unnecessary; if you aim to prove that something is possible, and you can make it happen, then it's possible.
2 words: Cold Fusion
Read Foundation sometime.
Nice timing, you got in immediately prior to the person who posted the "Blame Obama" comment.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4162/saturday-night-live-chess-tournament
To be clear, that can also be a signal that something's wrong with your car (like that you have a headlight out or your lights aren't on).
I just wish there were a reliable way to indicate to people that their taillights aren't on, those utter idiots.
"Ok, now I want you to call in if you're the Antichrist."
Similarly: Just because I'm driving the speed limit, I stay between the lines, my registration's up to date, and I'm not under the influence of any drugs, it doesn't mean I'm comfortable having a police car right behind me for 10 miles. I try to look for the first non-suspicious location to get out of the way.
In the US, your wealth probably plays in a lot more (i.e. can you afford the surgery?)
It's actually, "Can you afford the private jet to make yourself a possible candidate in a wider area given the short life of donor organs?" Same idea, though.
There is no right not to be offended.
In the US, Paper checks are free and transferring money electronically costs us money.
I would have to accept it. I'd then find another job where I consider it worth my while, or find a way to make myself worth higher pay to my employer. Nobody has an implicit right for things to stay the same. Only explicit contracts provide that.
Nobody has the right to be paid. Someone has to decide to pay you for what you're offering. If your offering isn't worth the cost, people won't pay it.
Because it destroys small businesses and seriously hurts medium sized business.
If a small-to-medium business's leadership has chosen an unsustainable business model that's disconnected from reality, then it's their own fault if the business goes under. There can be new businesses if a given model doesn't work out. That's how our economic system works.
Thanks. I was going to reply, but yours is more concise.
3) is "Receive Campaign Contributions" or "Accept Lucrative Revolving-Door Job". It's actually not a mystery in this situation.
You have to admit that copyright infringement is a major problem that needs to be handled one way or another.
Why? If people create content regardless of copyright infringement, which is the purpose of copyright, I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.
They continue to be extremely illegal. Tread softly.
Why does that need to be a crime? I could understand being charged with your complicity in the trampling deaths (say, some degree of negligent manslaughter), but why should yelling fire itself be criminal? That just sets up the government to decide other things are also illegal to say.
It's actually a single, gigantic .tif file.