What "real people" are you talking about? Are there fake people standing around somewhere, buying things without thinking first (besides apple fanbois)? How is thinner a benefit? Oh wait, I get it; you want to pretend that you are strong by shattering the screen by flicking it.
More complex to operate is a plus in this case, because it means that it can do more things.
The heaviest netbooks are about 3.5 pounds (that's weight, not cost, pedantic British people). Unless you are physically disabled (in which case you don't need a portable computer), weight carries no weight in purchasing decisions.
As far as more prone to failure, what the fuck are you talking about? No one has any idea what the failure rate of an ipad might be. You have less than 0 basis for making such a claim.
I agree, you have no idea what you are talking about.
For half of the cost of the cheapest ipad, you can get a netbook, which has more features, and 10x the hard drive (if not 30x).
After giving apple a shot. I have noticed that on literally every product produced, a cheaper, better alternative already exists.
You are claiming that I should give apple a shot, and compare the ipad to anything else. I'm not gonna buy one unless its better, regardless of price. Don't hold your breath.
What the hell are you talking about? First of all, all currency is fake. Microsoft has never forced you to buy anything. If you don't want to waste money, don't buy DLC (or in most cases, games). Legal tender is the clause that makes says that any viable currency be accepted in payment of debt. In other words, if Microsoft deals in microsoft points, they cannot say that you can no longer use points so long as you have them already; ie, if Microsoft wanted to close down microsoft points, they would have to give you the opportunity to spend them first, or reimburse every microsoft points holder for the cash value of those points (as the points are a debt that Microsoft owes to the purchaser). None of this is fraudulent, all information regarding the point system is readily available whether or not you choose to purchase points. On the other hand, on the basis of invitation to bargain, no other store is required to accept Microsoft points as legal tender, as they have no debt for such.
Microsoft, believe it or not, has a fantastic business model. Of course, Microsoft does not depend on the profits of X-box DLC sales; rather it is a small part of a much larger business. You go ahead and keep not investing in Microsoft, I'll keep collecting dividend checks and watching the stock price hover around 30 for a while, at least until it goes higher. Microsoft is most certainly creating profit from value; the company invested in R&D (an immediate expense), came up with an innovative solution, and was able to capitalize the software side to the point that ROI is not quite high enough to claim that they are selling nothing for something.
While I already pointed this out, Microsoft cannot terminate the points program at any time.
Clearly you have no concept of intenational trade. DLC is DLC, but when you sell it to multiple countries that operate in multiple currencies, you have exchange rate risk that must be alleviated. Microsoft could do this by either installing phone home software to make sure that when you register your X-box in (cheapest selling currency country flavor of the day) and later claim you moved to (country who just became cheaper) right when you want to buy more content that you actually moved to (wherever); or they could create a functional currency such that prices could be adjusted for individual markets. It would be irresponsible for Microsoft to allow you to pay in the currency of your choice at any given time, because you could wait to buy DLC when your currency was cheaper, even though Microsoft would be holding all of the exchange rate risk. Instead, if you buy points today, they are just as good as the points you buy 5 years from now.
Microsoft does tie DLC to userIDs, and doesn't let user ID's be logged in from more than one location at a time or a certain total number of consoles. They handle it really well, they just don't do it for free. Get over it.
If you are an indie musician, you understand fair use and you want as many people as possible to hear you. You don't care that 100,000 people saw your music video, because chances are, 100,000 people havent heard the title of your band, even by accident in random conversation (see, the indie band accident in random conversation just got a couple thousand people to hear their name, for free!). You aren't going to send a bunch of takedown notices unless someone is actually selling your product.
If you are universal, you can't let 1000 people hear your music without paying for it. Shareholders (correctly) believe that if you restrict access, people will pay for it. Exorbitant claims of lost value simply encourage the public to buy more (and it works).
EFF did more than just draft a letter. They determined that there was enough of a basis to draft a letter without risking countersuit. Is that worth 400k? Probably not, they are looking to settle. You can't negotiate by asking for less than you expect to get.
Should I complete a risk assessment to determine whether I make enough money to buy songs?
Since I live in the US, I'm glad that if a drunk driver hits my parked car, he/she has to pay to fix it, not punitive costs based on income. That concept is insulting and promotes poverty.
Seriously, you couldn't possibly have a g1. You read a message board somewhere claiming someone didn't have a data plan, but that person is also a liar. Apologize to/. immediately.
You need the data plan in order to set up wifi in the first place, because you have to be logged into the phone by signing in to your gmail account on your g1. It doesn't come with wifi enabled (and it doesnt stay enabled if you don't have a data plan; if your gmail would log out, your phone will too). Tmobile employees do not insist on selling you a data plan; legally they have to sell you the phone outright without services if you insist on such. Its really, really stupid that they do, since no one else provides services for the phone. They will happily sell you a g1 without a data plan, and then laugh at you when you can't use the phone (no wait, that's me laughing at you, tmobile employees get paid to make sure you understand that the phone won't work without a data plan), not even to googlechat (I guess you can SMS, but why bother when you can email to SMS). You would have bought a $600 shiny slider phone with tons of capabilities that you don't use (since you have had it for months, technically today you can get a $400 brick).
This would be equivalent to buying a 5 bedroom house, boarding up all the rooms that you do not personally sleep in, blocking off the swimming pool, steam room, home fitness center, and finished basement, and then telling me that I'm a sucker for remodeling because your house is just fine for sleeping in by yourself, and that you did so while buying the house outright because it was one of the advantages of not getting a mortgage.
On the other hand, you will not have wifi access without a data plan. Its exactly like how you wont have phone call access without a calling plan (yours is prepaid). No browsing, no apps, and no googlemaps.
Congratulations, you are either a liar or a blathering idiot who apparently paid more money than someone with a contract (for the phone itself) so that you can't really use it. You bought an expensive niche phone so that you could make phone calls just fine? Why not get a $20 flip phone? Perhaps something from the free section on craigslist?
Tell us, o non-dataplan using g1 owner, why on earth did you choose a g1 when you don't use it?
Text messages are not necessary from the even more (plus) plan because the G1 requires a data plan that includes text messages.
Also, the even more plan is 60 for just unlimited talk and 70 for unlimited talk, text, and wen., while the even more plus is 80 for talk, text, and web.
I have also forgotten to include that with the contract, there is no activation, but with upfront purchase (talk to the manager at your local tmobile store, and if they wont waive activation, buy your contract from another tmobile store more than likely within walking distance), you are out another $35.
You would think they would waive the activation fee on upfront purchased phones, since you don't have a contract, but oddly enough, employees get bonuses for selling contracts, not phones.
As someone who actually has a G1, I can assure you that the required data plan is only $25 a month. The difference is only $10 a month, which means that if the tmobile subsidy was 270, it would be cheaper to get the contract, not factoring inflation.
Granted, the difference only exists if you are not getting the unlimited minutes plan. $50 a month for unlimited talk means no price difference between contract and not contract. If you use your phone an hour a day, it would be stupid not to get the unlimited plan. If you aren't using the unlimited plan, its a little silly to put any money into your phone in the first place. Head over to walmart and get straight talk - 1000 minutes, 1000 texts, 30 mb of data, $30 a month, no contract (ie you pay, then you get the month).
The G1 with a 2 year plan is $50 down (initially, it was $200, but the phone cost $550 then, as prices have dropped, so has the prepayment). Add in the 10 bucks a month for 2 years and the total is 290 (200 + 10*24). Buying the G1 without subsidy is between $400 (from t-mobile) and $470 (amazon). Whoops, its at least $100 cheaper (on the phone itself) if you don't buy the phone outright.
You are completely wrong, because "person" just means individual legal entity, hence why according to SCOTUS, corporations are "persons". There is in fact a difference between "person" and "human being". Corporations are not human beings, they are people.
This seems to be a recurring issue with/. People don't seem to get that if a word has multiple definitions and one of them does not apply because to do so would be stupid, then use the definition that makes sense instead.
Corporations and human beings are taxed differently because corporations produce goods and services, whereas human beings use goods and services. Wow, that was probably the first thing that any reasonable person would have determined, instead of trying to say that because you live in a house and corporations rent property for the purpose of conducting business, you should both get to deduct those costs from taxable income.
Stop being stupid, corporations and individuals get taxed differently because they have very, very different purposes.
As far as politicians go, they have two kinds of constituents:
1) Those that are smart enough to realize that polticians are professional liars. 2) Those that believe the campaign promises that politicians make, and donate money to the ones that they agree with.
As long as the second type are more prevalent (and trust me, its at least a 10:1 ratio among voters [see, I can also pull numbers out of my ass]), it doesn't matter if we change legal requirements for political candidates to only be CEO's of fortune 25 companies, because people will still believe in the messages of "hope" and "change" time and time again.
hile I agree that corporations are not taxed like individuals, your reasoning is a ludicrous argument.
Individuals don't have operating costs. By definition, operating costs are the recurring expenses related to the operation of a business. Corporations do not supply you with food or housing (or if they do, its not deductible as an operating expense).
On the other hand, if you are making 100k a year, your savable/invest-able income is closer to 75k, not 20k (and only that little if you live in a high rent area). If you gain an additional dollar of revenue, your marginal NI is going to be much higher than most corporations. Once you pay for all of your legal liabilities - the stuff that keeps you alive - rent, heat (not internet and cable) , food (groceries, not restaurant meals 10 times a week), after taxes, you have 40-50k out of your 100k where your marginal NI is 100%. If a corporation makes another dollar, they have more expenses. A corporation will eventually outarn its fixed costs (if they make a profit), but they will never have a marginal rate anywhere close to 100%. In other words, people do not have variable costs. Effectively, the variable costs are what corporations get to deduct from taxable income that individuals do not.
If you turn access to news into a popularity contest, you get what happened to televised news - its not well researched content, its barely professionally produced, and your choices end up being national stories with stupid talking heads providing ridiculous commentary or local news, which includes weather forecasts and and the fireman who got a kitty out of a tree along with fear mongering about how should be shut down forever for what you won't believe they did (right after this commerical break).
If newspapers have to fight a popularity contest to succeed, then I dont want them to just to fail; rather I want them to fail so miserably that the very concept of newspaper becomes taboo.
Having to buy $50 of credit so they can view 5 cent articles Having to click, yes, charge me a nickel every time they want to read an article
You might read 5 articles a day, but I probably would read 1 or two articles a week. You know what my credit card company doesn't like? Having me call them to contest a bill for 20 cents because it doesnt say NYT, it says (whatever company NYT sells collections to).
The vast majority of people would prefer a subscription model. No worrying about whether you got charged twice for reading the an article at breakfast and rereading in the evening, or both my cellphone and my desktop. No worrying about the page not loading.
You want to pay for single use reading material, whereas I want a subscription where I can go back and read an article again whenever I want without paying again. Oh wait, I already get a newspaper.
No one posted that...it was a joke. Read the damn comments, there were only 2 of them that you had to go through, and based on the topic headliner, the one that got modded up wasn't a response to anyone.
I have to disagree with a couple of points. Pedantically, I have to point out that there are no states that obligate themselves to national defense...that would be a federal issue (never mind that national defense is not a goal, but rather one of the fundamental reasons to have a federal government).
The US has refused to ratify the UNCRC, but not because of reproductive issues (this is a large point of what is wrong the UNCRC, but it is a little more fundamental than any specific issue one might raise). Its because by ratifying, the UN would be able to dictate to American parents how best to raise their children. Article 6 of the constitution requires that international treaties are binding, and the UNCRC would supersede state laws. Considering that the US had a civil war over the rights of individual states to create their own laws and have them supersede federal issues, it is extremely unlikely that we will ratify the UNCRC anytime soon. Believe it or not, the US does have laws in place to protect children from violence and exploitation; we can protect children without having other countries telling us how and why we specifically should do so.
To put this another way, rape is illegal in the US (and both the Irish constitution and European views of US rape law are irrelevant here), but not because rape causes sex outside of marriage. There are bigger issues here than the views of religious organizations (granted, almost anything should carry more weight than the views of a religious organization, but while I can't get federal funding for stem cell research, farmers get it everyday).
Holy crap, a reasonable response...on/. I've never seen one before. Please realize that this is a big moment for me, but I recognize that you have actually thought before posting. You should be commended for this. This also means that I will counter you (I am unemployed, after all) until one of us convinces the other.
Note that IANAL, but note that most people who are from Texas recognize themselves as from Texas, indifferent to recognizing themselves as Americans. While this point is mostly in jest, part of it is not. One state does not influence the overall accepted view of Americans (even if an issue is state to state). On the other hand, an obligation of the state is entirely due to the right of the recipient. States do not fix highways unless their citizens pay taxes to pay for them, and public educational systems are run under the same basis (Texas or otherwise).
If you really need me to point out the interference of no child left behind or literally hundreds of other federal programs, I can do so, but I don't think they are necessary to point out the fact that in any of the fifty states, you will get an education until you prove that you are undeserving of one (yes, outliers exist, but they are individual cases, not valid legal arguments). The requirements to continue your education may vary from state to state, but please point out one of the fifty where you have to earn your right to a public education. In most of them, you don't even need to be a US citizen. You just have to have an address.
If you are a US citizen, you have a right to an education. If you do something to lose this right (by being expelled), it does not change the fact that you had the right to an education by existing.
This is very different from driving, in which case you must earn the privilege of doing so.
The convention of the rights of a child is a form created by UNICEF, not by a governmental organization. It has as much power as my personal standard of my right to win the lottery. Literally, neither has any power, to any entity, anywhere. Even if UNICEF claims that it is internationally legally binding, no court will uphold it (at least not on the grounds that UNICEF says so).
The right to education is enumerated in state constitutions, not federal. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 required an adequate system of instruction to be available and that education need be encouraged in order for a state to be admitted to the union. Granted, the founders thought that religion was a reasonable topic to be taught in the form of education, but luckily we adapt to what is reasonable (hence evolution is now taught in most schools).
On the other hand, our federal government is heavily involved in education today. Don't make me get into how this occurs, because even a troll like you recognizes this.
There is nothing in the constitution that says I can't masturbate to whatever my mind might think of. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to do so.
By the way, federal decree cannot expunge local rights. This is in the constitution (see california about medical marijuana, states that don't allow gay marriage, and the fact that you can't buy alcohol in Georgia on Sunday for examples of why this is true).
Slashdot Mirror
What "real people" are you talking about? Are there fake people standing around somewhere, buying things without thinking first (besides apple fanbois)? How is thinner a benefit? Oh wait, I get it; you want to pretend that you are strong by shattering the screen by flicking it.
More complex to operate is a plus in this case, because it means that it can do more things.
The heaviest netbooks are about 3.5 pounds (that's weight, not cost, pedantic British people). Unless you are physically disabled (in which case you don't need a portable computer), weight carries no weight in purchasing decisions.
As far as more prone to failure, what the fuck are you talking about? No one has any idea what the failure rate of an ipad might be. You have less than 0 basis for making such a claim.
I agree, you have no idea what you are talking about.
For half of the cost of the cheapest ipad, you can get a netbook, which has more features, and 10x the hard drive (if not 30x).
After giving apple a shot. I have noticed that on literally every product produced, a cheaper, better alternative already exists.
You are claiming that I should give apple a shot, and compare the ipad to anything else. I'm not gonna buy one unless its better, regardless of price. Don't hold your breath.
What the hell are you talking about? First of all, all currency is fake. Microsoft has never forced you to buy anything. If you don't want to waste money, don't buy DLC (or in most cases, games). Legal tender is the clause that makes says that any viable currency be accepted in payment of debt. In other words, if Microsoft deals in microsoft points, they cannot say that you can no longer use points so long as you have them already; ie, if Microsoft wanted to close down microsoft points, they would have to give you the opportunity to spend them first, or reimburse every microsoft points holder for the cash value of those points (as the points are a debt that Microsoft owes to the purchaser). None of this is fraudulent, all information regarding the point system is readily available whether or not you choose to purchase points. On the other hand, on the basis of invitation to bargain, no other store is required to accept Microsoft points as legal tender, as they have no debt for such.
Microsoft, believe it or not, has a fantastic business model. Of course, Microsoft does not depend on the profits of X-box DLC sales; rather it is a small part of a much larger business. You go ahead and keep not investing in Microsoft, I'll keep collecting dividend checks and watching the stock price hover around 30 for a while, at least until it goes higher. Microsoft is most certainly creating profit from value; the company invested in R&D (an immediate expense), came up with an innovative solution, and was able to capitalize the software side to the point that ROI is not quite high enough to claim that they are selling nothing for something.
While I already pointed this out, Microsoft cannot terminate the points program at any time.
Clearly you have no concept of intenational trade. DLC is DLC, but when you sell it to multiple countries that operate in multiple currencies, you have exchange rate risk that must be alleviated. Microsoft could do this by either installing phone home software to make sure that when you register your X-box in (cheapest selling currency country flavor of the day) and later claim you moved to (country who just became cheaper) right when you want to buy more content that you actually moved to (wherever); or they could create a functional currency such that prices could be adjusted for individual markets. It would be irresponsible for Microsoft to allow you to pay in the currency of your choice at any given time, because you could wait to buy DLC when your currency was cheaper, even though Microsoft would be holding all of the exchange rate risk. Instead, if you buy points today, they are just as good as the points you buy 5 years from now.
Microsoft does tie DLC to userIDs, and doesn't let user ID's be logged in from more than one location at a time or a certain total number of consoles. They handle it really well, they just don't do it for free. Get over it.
You've go it backwards.
If you are an indie musician, you understand fair use and you want as many people as possible to hear you. You don't care that 100,000 people saw your music video, because chances are, 100,000 people havent heard the title of your band, even by accident in random conversation (see, the indie band accident in random conversation just got a couple thousand people to hear their name, for free!). You aren't going to send a bunch of takedown notices unless someone is actually selling your product.
If you are universal, you can't let 1000 people hear your music without paying for it. Shareholders (correctly) believe that if you restrict access, people will pay for it. Exorbitant claims of lost value simply encourage the public to buy more (and it works).
EFF did more than just draft a letter. They determined that there was enough of a basis to draft a letter without risking countersuit. Is that worth 400k? Probably not, they are looking to settle. You can't negotiate by asking for less than you expect to get.
So if I'm unemployed, I can infringe all I want?
Should I complete a risk assessment to determine whether I make enough money to buy songs?
Since I live in the US, I'm glad that if a drunk driver hits my parked car, he/she has to pay to fix it, not punitive costs based on income. That concept is insulting and promotes poverty.
I hate to quote your mother, but two wrongs don't make a right.
By the way, its not a single song download that costs 80k, its the right to distribute a copyrighted work, which may be worth much more than that.
Seriously, you couldn't possibly have a g1. You read a message board somewhere claiming someone didn't have a data plan, but that person is also a liar. Apologize to /. immediately.
You need the data plan in order to set up wifi in the first place, because you have to be logged into the phone by signing in to your gmail account on your g1. It doesn't come with wifi enabled (and it doesnt stay enabled if you don't have a data plan; if your gmail would log out, your phone will too). Tmobile employees do not insist on selling you a data plan; legally they have to sell you the phone outright without services if you insist on such. Its really, really stupid that they do, since no one else provides services for the phone. They will happily sell you a g1 without a data plan, and then laugh at you when you can't use the phone (no wait, that's me laughing at you, tmobile employees get paid to make sure you understand that the phone won't work without a data plan), not even to googlechat (I guess you can SMS, but why bother when you can email to SMS). You would have bought a $600 shiny slider phone with tons of capabilities that you don't use (since you have had it for months, technically today you can get a $400 brick).
This would be equivalent to buying a 5 bedroom house, boarding up all the rooms that you do not personally sleep in, blocking off the swimming pool, steam room, home fitness center, and finished basement, and then telling me that I'm a sucker for remodeling because your house is just fine for sleeping in by yourself, and that you did so while buying the house outright because it was one of the advantages of not getting a mortgage.
On the other hand, you will not have wifi access without a data plan. Its exactly like how you wont have phone call access without a calling plan (yours is prepaid). No browsing, no apps, and no googlemaps.
Congratulations, you are either a liar or a blathering idiot who apparently paid more money than someone with a contract (for the phone itself) so that you can't really use it. You bought an expensive niche phone so that you could make phone calls just fine? Why not get a $20 flip phone? Perhaps something from the free section on craigslist?
Tell us, o non-dataplan using g1 owner, why on earth did you choose a g1 when you don't use it?
Text messages are not necessary from the even more (plus) plan because the G1 requires a data plan that includes text messages.
Also, the even more plan is 60 for just unlimited talk and 70 for unlimited talk, text, and wen., while the even more plus is 80 for talk, text, and web.
I have also forgotten to include that with the contract, there is no activation, but with upfront purchase (talk to the manager at your local tmobile store, and if they wont waive activation, buy your contract from another tmobile store more than likely within walking distance), you are out another $35.
You would think they would waive the activation fee on upfront purchased phones, since you don't have a contract, but oddly enough, employees get bonuses for selling contracts, not phones.
As someone who actually has a G1, I can assure you that the required data plan is only $25 a month. The difference is only $10 a month, which means that if the tmobile subsidy was 270, it would be cheaper to get the contract, not factoring inflation.
Granted, the difference only exists if you are not getting the unlimited minutes plan. $50 a month for unlimited talk means no price difference between contract and not contract. If you use your phone an hour a day, it would be stupid not to get the unlimited plan. If you aren't using the unlimited plan, its a little silly to put any money into your phone in the first place. Head over to walmart and get straight talk - 1000 minutes, 1000 texts, 30 mb of data, $30 a month, no contract (ie you pay, then you get the month).
You suck at math.
The G1 with a 2 year plan is $50 down (initially, it was $200, but the phone cost $550 then, as prices have dropped, so has the prepayment). Add in the 10 bucks a month for 2 years and the total is 290 (200 + 10*24). Buying the G1 without subsidy is between $400 (from t-mobile) and $470 (amazon). Whoops, its at least $100 cheaper (on the phone itself) if you don't buy the phone outright.
I'm pretty sure that if the original judgement was 54k, and that 2MM was never raised, 54k would still be called outrageous.
Reducing a fine from $Texas to $texas is still higher than a reasonable fine.
You are completely wrong, because "person" just means individual legal entity, hence why according to SCOTUS, corporations are "persons". There is in fact a difference between "person" and "human being". Corporations are not human beings, they are people.
This seems to be a recurring issue with /.
People don't seem to get that if a word has multiple definitions and one of them does not apply because to do so would be stupid, then use the definition that makes sense instead.
Corporations and human beings are taxed differently because corporations produce goods and services, whereas human beings use goods and services. Wow, that was probably the first thing that any reasonable person would have determined, instead of trying to say that because you live in a house and corporations rent property for the purpose of conducting business, you should both get to deduct those costs from taxable income.
Stop being stupid, corporations and individuals get taxed differently because they have very, very different purposes.
As far as politicians go, they have two kinds of constituents:
1) Those that are smart enough to realize that polticians are professional liars.
2) Those that believe the campaign promises that politicians make, and donate money to the ones that they agree with.
As long as the second type are more prevalent (and trust me, its at least a 10:1 ratio among voters [see, I can also pull numbers out of my ass]), it doesn't matter if we change legal requirements for political candidates to only be CEO's of fortune 25 companies, because people will still believe in the messages of "hope" and "change" time and time again.
hile I agree that corporations are not taxed like individuals, your reasoning is a ludicrous argument.
Individuals don't have operating costs. By definition, operating costs are the recurring expenses related to the operation of a business. Corporations do not supply you with food or housing (or if they do, its not deductible as an operating expense).
On the other hand, if you are making 100k a year, your savable/invest-able income is closer to 75k, not 20k (and only that little if you live in a high rent area). If you gain an additional dollar of revenue, your marginal NI is going to be much higher than most corporations. Once you pay for all of your legal liabilities - the stuff that keeps you alive - rent, heat (not internet and cable) , food (groceries, not restaurant meals 10 times a week), after taxes, you have 40-50k out of your 100k where your marginal NI is 100%. If a corporation makes another dollar, they have more expenses. A corporation will eventually outarn its fixed costs (if they make a profit), but they will never have a marginal rate anywhere close to 100%. In other words, people do not have variable costs. Effectively, the variable costs are what corporations get to deduct from taxable income that individuals do not.
I see a problem with this.
If you turn access to news into a popularity contest, you get what happened to televised news - its not well researched content, its barely professionally produced, and your choices end up being national stories with stupid talking heads providing ridiculous commentary or local news, which includes weather forecasts and and the fireman who got a kitty out of a tree along with fear mongering about how should be shut down forever for what you won't believe they did (right after this commerical break).
If newspapers have to fight a popularity contest to succeed, then I dont want them to just to fail; rather I want them to fail so miserably that the very concept of newspaper becomes taboo.
You know what people don't like?
Having to buy $50 of credit so they can view 5 cent articles
Having to click, yes, charge me a nickel every time they want to read an article
You might read 5 articles a day, but I probably would read 1 or two articles a week. You know what my credit card company doesn't like? Having me call them to contest a bill for 20 cents because it doesnt say NYT, it says (whatever company NYT sells collections to).
The vast majority of people would prefer a subscription model. No worrying about whether you got charged twice for reading the an article at breakfast and rereading in the evening, or both my cellphone and my desktop. No worrying about the page not loading.
You want to pay for single use reading material, whereas I want a subscription where I can go back and read an article again whenever I want without paying again. Oh wait, I already get a newspaper.
The difference, of course, being that people from the UK can't spell properly.
You must be stupid here (doesn't matter if you are new).
AC response was to OP as I pointed out, who is the only one who had a point. You argued against OP, but did so in a way that was irrelevant.
My point is irrelevant in that OP is still correct, which was my point.
No one posted that...it was a joke. Read the damn comments, there were only 2 of them that you had to go through, and based on the topic headliner, the one that got modded up wasn't a response to anyone.
Yes, but the issue is not whether you can, its whether you legally are/should be allowed to. OP wins against your irrelevance.
And?
We know for certain that man has been around for more than 6000 years.
In the words of Lewis Black, "fossil."
That's ok, just change the second word of the response from isn't to shouldn't and the response is still correct.
Then post it AC...
I have to disagree with a couple of points. Pedantically, I have to point out that there are no states that obligate themselves to national defense...that would be a federal issue (never mind that national defense is not a goal, but rather one of the fundamental reasons to have a federal government).
The US has refused to ratify the UNCRC, but not because of reproductive issues (this is a large point of what is wrong the UNCRC, but it is a little more fundamental than any specific issue one might raise). Its because by ratifying, the UN would be able to dictate to American parents how best to raise their children. Article 6 of the constitution requires that international treaties are binding, and the UNCRC would supersede state laws. Considering that the US had a civil war over the rights of individual states to create their own laws and have them supersede federal issues, it is extremely unlikely that we will ratify the UNCRC anytime soon. Believe it or not, the US does have laws in place to protect children from violence and exploitation; we can protect children without having other countries telling us how and why we specifically should do so.
To put this another way, rape is illegal in the US (and both the Irish constitution and European views of US rape law are irrelevant here), but not because rape causes sex outside of marriage. There are bigger issues here than the views of religious organizations (granted, almost anything should carry more weight than the views of a religious organization, but while I can't get federal funding for stem cell research, farmers get it everyday).
Holy crap, a reasonable response...on /. I've never seen one before. Please realize that this is a big moment for me, but I recognize that you have actually thought before posting. You should be commended for this. This also means that I will counter you (I am unemployed, after all) until one of us convinces the other.
Note that IANAL, but note that most people who are from Texas recognize themselves as from Texas, indifferent to recognizing themselves as Americans. While this point is mostly in jest, part of it is not. One state does not influence the overall accepted view of Americans (even if an issue is state to state). On the other hand, an obligation of the state is entirely due to the right of the recipient. States do not fix highways unless their citizens pay taxes to pay for them, and public educational systems are run under the same basis (Texas or otherwise).
If you really need me to point out the interference of no child left behind or literally hundreds of other federal programs, I can do so, but I don't think they are necessary to point out the fact that in any of the fifty states, you will get an education until you prove that you are undeserving of one (yes, outliers exist, but they are individual cases, not valid legal arguments). The requirements to continue your education may vary from state to state, but please point out one of the fifty where you have to earn your right to a public education. In most of them, you don't even need to be a US citizen. You just have to have an address.
No, it doesnt, in any way shape, way, or form.
If you are a US citizen, you have a right to an education. If you do something to lose this right (by being expelled), it does not change the fact that you had the right to an education by existing.
This is very different from driving, in which case you must earn the privilege of doing so.
The convention of the rights of a child is a form created by UNICEF, not by a governmental organization. It has as much power as my personal standard of my right to win the lottery. Literally, neither has any power, to any entity, anywhere. Even if UNICEF claims that it is internationally legally binding, no court will uphold it (at least not on the grounds that UNICEF says so).
The right to education is enumerated in state constitutions, not federal. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 required an adequate system of instruction to be available and that education need be encouraged in order for a state to be admitted to the union. Granted, the founders thought that religion was a reasonable topic to be taught in the form of education, but luckily we adapt to what is reasonable (hence evolution is now taught in most schools).
On the other hand, our federal government is heavily involved in education today. Don't make me get into how this occurs, because even a troll like you recognizes this.
There is nothing in the constitution that says I can't masturbate to whatever my mind might think of. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to do so.
By the way, federal decree cannot expunge local rights. This is in the constitution (see california about medical marijuana, states that don't allow gay marriage, and the fact that you can't buy alcohol in Georgia on Sunday for examples of why this is true).