it's simple: you take it to your own bank, and deposit it. Your bank will get the money transferred from BofA for no fee.
You are presuming that the person holding the check written on BoA paper has a bank account.
This is the point of the argument against BoA (and the few other banks) that charge a fee for cashing their own financial instruments. The worst part of it is that the person with the BoA account generally doesnt even know that there is such a fee when they are writing their check.
Banks charging money to cash their own financial instruments is a relatively new phenomena, and the only banks that do it handle very large amounts of payroll checks. BoA in particular strategically took over regional banks across the country, one after another, that had a significant payroll business. I'm sure more than a few of us here have witnessed the bank their employer does business with get taken over by BoA.
Mine cost $35 with no contract (its pay-as-you-go.)
You are paying a lot more than you think for that shiny toy, they just figured out you will swallow $200 up front and finance the rest over two years a lot better than $499 up front.
You are confusing "cell phone" with "smart phone".. stop being an idiot. Smart phones are still a large minority both in the United States as well as globally.
It is because the TracPhone is crap
So yesterdays high-end feature-phones like the Motorola RAZR are crap now? You really are an idiot. You seem to have incorrectly conflated "Touch Screen" with "Quality" and that makes you stupid.
It seems to me that the few iPad owners that I know of where I work (who all also have iPhones) are in the most debt. They arent low-income, but are well into negative net worth. Completely upside down.
So you admit that you do not know the reason why you do not have a cable provider, but still insist on blaming the cable companies.
Here is an idea: Get off your ass and find out why, instead of forming opinions about things that you are knowingly ignorant about. I mean for christ sakes.. you KNOW that you dont know!..whats this, faith-based blaming? Your behavior is dumber than a Christian, because at least they know its faith.
Why the hell aren't they paying me for having their equipment on my property and why then as a private property owner am I legally prevented from going out and renting a ditch witch and digging up all of their equipment on my property and selling it as scrap since obviously they have abandoned it.
Because your local government decided that these companies could do these things.
They seem to get an awful lot of government granted benefits, but unlike the power or gas company they are not a regulated monopoly.
They are regulated locally, by either utility commissions and/or town/city/state representatives. Probably its both.
Dont ask the federal government to fix your locally fucked up shit with federal laws that apply to people outside of the influence of your locally fucked up shit. The problem is your locally fucked up shit and the solution is fixing it locally.
Get involved in your local government and stop looking to the federal government to micro-manage your local situation.
You live in an area so remote that you dont even have a cable company.
This isnt a failure of the market. The failure is you not understanding that you personally represent a much larger fraction of the local market than the average Joe, so you personally must bear a much larger portion of both the build-out and the maintenance costs than the average Joe.
Yes it sucks that in your case it would be prohibitively expensive to run some coax so many miles for so few people, but that is the reality that you chose. I dont want to subsidize you being able to live in the middle of fucking nowhere, enjoying all the benefits of it but suffering none of the consequences for it.
That isn't a reason. You might as well say, "because I said so."
It is most certainly a reason, contrary to your belief that they shouldn't have one.
There has to be a reason that they "want to," and the most likely reason is commercial advantage.
So instead of the blanket "no reason not to" you have converted to "well, most of the time its a commercial reason"
Almost all of those old school shareware authors
Are you trying to convince me, or you? If you are trying to convince me, then you wont be getting away with arguments about shareware being applied to freeware. You know that shareware and freeware are different, right?
The idea that there might be some small number of people who want to give away software entirely altruistically but for some eccentric reason without the source code just seems like grasping at straws.
Judging by the efforts of wikipedia dolts, looks to me like freeware is alive and well, in spit of your "small numbers" and "eccentric" claims, and it looks to me like your Open Source movement includes a lot of fucking commercial shit, while the freeware movement doesnt include any commercial shit at all.
It is not common practice to sign an NDA to disclose public information.
Yes it is.
NDA's in negotiations cover 100% of all things discussed during those negotiations, both public and private. Any information that is public still cannot be disclosed as being discussed during the negotiations. If we are negotiating and I tell you about a recent newspaper article, and we are following the standard industry practice of signing NDA's, then you cannot mention that I talked about that recent (entirely public) newspaper article during the negotiations.
You are trying to spin perfectly normal business negotiation procedures into something extraordinary.. in other words, you are wrong and being dishonest.
It certainly isn't in Samsung's interest to take a risk just on the premise that the FOSS community will then be able to work around potential infringements.
Evens Barnes and Noble didnt make their choice based on that premise. Barnes and Noble most likely decided that it was hard enough competing with Amazon without paying licensing fee's to Microsoft, and that it is better to stay in the market at current prices and margins and take the risk. Remember than companies like Barnes and Noble are in rapid decline (its stock has tumbled down 72%, from $35 to $10, in the past 5 years) and absolutely have to get a foothold into new markets, regardless of cost, or its over for them.
Your support for this egregious activity is telling.
The only telling thing here is that you act like its uncommon for there to be NDA's when negotiating, when in reality its normal, common, and expected.
Microsoft is playing the current game because its the game being played currently. It wasnt so long ago that there was a patent cold-war where there were very few patent lawsuits, and never between the big players, because nobody wanted to open that can of worms. Then Apple got into mobile devices and starting suing everyone that dared make anything competitive with iBrand products, and now everyone is suing everyone.
Well, for certain most of these phones are compatible with Exchange ActiveSync.. while not a default feature of Android, phones that can synch with Exchange are very likely to be infringing without a license deal.
(even Google licensed the IP for ActiveSync for their own Google-branded phones)
..and each Android phone manufacturer that has made a deal with Microsoft has signed that NDA that you are complaining about.
If you own Barnes and Noble stock you should take pause, because unlike these other companies that have their own IP to throw around, Barnes and Noble has zilch and are also completely inexperienced in these matters. There will be no middle ground, and no late-game IP swaps to minimize monetary damages. Either they will win and its business as usual (losing to Amazon), or they will lose and get raked over the coals (still losing to Amazon, and paying punitive sums of money to Microsoft.)
You can cry fowl about the NDA request, but very large and highly entrenched companies are signing that NDA and then when they see what Microsoft has they end up making a deal. Even Google licensed ActiveSync for its Android phones.
Not managing costs from more-or-less reasonably expected costs. That's what the thing we call health insurance currently does.
You are completely wrong. Traditional health insurance policies in the United States are all about covering routine costs.
You were describing Catastrophic Health Insurance (aka "High Deductible Insurance") which is not the norm in the United States at all. The norm is the exact opposite.. low deductibles applied to nearly 100% of all doctor visits, mostly routine, and as a result people pay high premiums.
With regards to your question... the federal government does not mandate automobile insurance for drivers on the interstates. The federal government mandates compliance with state laws on the interstates, and not all states require automobile insurance (just proof of assets equal to state liability minimums, such as Wisconsin.)
Thats the problem. When someone *has* to pay, providers (not insurance companies) can raise rates like crazy, which is what they have done.
Take a dog to the vet for a broken leg. Observe low price.
Break your own leg and head off to a doctor. Observe high price.
Confess to the doctor that you don't have insurance. Observe medium price.
If a patient does not have health insurance, they are entitled solely to a minimum level of health care in emergency situations to provide "stabilizing care".
Even *with* insurance, thats all that you are "entitled" to. What you are and are not entitled to is entirely specified by law, not private contract.
Thats not what the Democrats wanted when they forced through (only a single Republican vote in both House and Senate, combined) their reforms. They wanted to make everyone send money towards those blue states in New England that have all those massive insurance companies (Hartford, Connecticut is the insurance capital of the world, and the entire region is top-heavy with insurance companies)
Slashdot Mirror
it's simple: you take it to your own bank, and deposit it. Your bank will get the money transferred from BofA for no fee.
You are presuming that the person holding the check written on BoA paper has a bank account.
This is the point of the argument against BoA (and the few other banks) that charge a fee for cashing their own financial instruments. The worst part of it is that the person with the BoA account generally doesnt even know that there is such a fee when they are writing their check.
The FDIC estimates that there are 10 million American households without bank accounts that are thus forced to pay a fee whenever they receive a BoA financial instrument.
Banks charging money to cash their own financial instruments is a relatively new phenomena, and the only banks that do it handle very large amounts of payroll checks. BoA in particular strategically took over regional banks across the country, one after another, that had a significant payroll business. I'm sure more than a few of us here have witnessed the bank their employer does business with get taken over by BoA.
Every actually priced a cell phone?
Mine cost $35 with no contract (its pay-as-you-go.)
You are paying a lot more than you think for that shiny toy, they just figured out you will swallow $200 up front and finance the rest over two years a lot better than $499 up front.
You are confusing "cell phone" with "smart phone" .. stop being an idiot. Smart phones are still a large minority both in the United States as well as globally.
It is because the TracPhone is crap
So yesterdays high-end feature-phones like the Motorola RAZR are crap now? You really are an idiot. You seem to have incorrectly conflated "Touch Screen" with "Quality" and that makes you stupid.
Someone mod me troll for calling this wanker out.
..hence why (the surface of) a balloon is a good analogy.
It seems to me that the few iPad owners that I know of where I work (who all also have iPhones) are in the most debt. They arent low-income, but are well into negative net worth. Completely upside down.
They sure do look cool with their iStuff tho.
Uh, does it really make sense to govern the internet at the local municipality level?
We arent talking about governing the internet. We are talking about governing access to the internet, which is inherently local.
Next time, think it through.
So you admit that you do not know the reason why you do not have a cable provider, but still insist on blaming the cable companies.
..whats this, faith-based blaming? Your behavior is dumber than a Christian, because at least they know its faith.
Here is an idea: Get off your ass and find out why, instead of forming opinions about things that you are knowingly ignorant about. I mean for christ sakes.. you KNOW that you dont know!
Doesn't Comcast serve most of silicon valley? Maybe they arent allowed to run lines to your home by the local government?
Why the hell aren't they paying me for having their equipment on my property and why then as a private property owner am I legally prevented from going out and renting a ditch witch and digging up all of their equipment on my property and selling it as scrap since obviously they have abandoned it.
Because your local government decided that these companies could do these things.
They seem to get an awful lot of government granted benefits, but unlike the power or gas company they are not a regulated monopoly.
They are regulated locally, by either utility commissions and/or town/city/state representatives. Probably its both.
Dont ask the federal government to fix your locally fucked up shit with federal laws that apply to people outside of the influence of your locally fucked up shit. The problem is your locally fucked up shit and the solution is fixing it locally.
Get involved in your local government and stop looking to the federal government to micro-manage your local situation.
You live in an area so remote that you dont even have a cable company.
This isnt a failure of the market. The failure is you not understanding that you personally represent a much larger fraction of the local market than the average Joe, so you personally must bear a much larger portion of both the build-out and the maintenance costs than the average Joe.
Yes it sucks that in your case it would be prohibitively expensive to run some coax so many miles for so few people, but that is the reality that you chose. I dont want to subsidize you being able to live in the middle of fucking nowhere, enjoying all the benefits of it but suffering none of the consequences for it.
Propose a realistic solution or shut up and cope.
That isn't a reason. You might as well say, "because I said so."
It is most certainly a reason, contrary to your belief that they shouldn't have one.
There has to be a reason that they "want to," and the most likely reason is commercial advantage.
So instead of the blanket "no reason not to" you have converted to "well, most of the time its a commercial reason"
Almost all of those old school shareware authors
Are you trying to convince me, or you? If you are trying to convince me, then you wont be getting away with arguments about shareware being applied to freeware. You know that shareware and freeware are different, right?
The idea that there might be some small number of people who want to give away software entirely altruistically but for some eccentric reason without the source code just seems like grasping at straws.
Here is a small list of 102 freeware (none of them ever having been open source or commercial) games.
Here is a small list of 142 open source (some of them having been commercial, many of them unplayable due to the content still being commercial) games.
Judging by the efforts of wikipedia dolts, looks to me like freeware is alive and well, in spit of your "small numbers" and "eccentric" claims, and it looks to me like your Open Source movement includes a lot of fucking commercial shit, while the freeware movement doesnt include any commercial shit at all.
Stop letting your religion cloud your judgment.
It is not common practice to sign an NDA to disclose public information.
Yes it is.
NDA's in negotiations cover 100% of all things discussed during those negotiations, both public and private. Any information that is public still cannot be disclosed as being discussed during the negotiations. If we are negotiating and I tell you about a recent newspaper article, and we are following the standard industry practice of signing NDA's, then you cannot mention that I talked about that recent (entirely public) newspaper article during the negotiations.
You are trying to spin perfectly normal business negotiation procedures into something extraordinary.. in other words, you are wrong and being dishonest.
Apple cross-licenses with Microsoft.
RIM cross-licenses with Microsoft.
What were you saying again?
It certainly isn't in Samsung's interest to take a risk just on the premise that the FOSS community will then be able to work around potential infringements.
Evens Barnes and Noble didnt make their choice based on that premise. Barnes and Noble most likely decided that it was hard enough competing with Amazon without paying licensing fee's to Microsoft, and that it is better to stay in the market at current prices and margins and take the risk. Remember than companies like Barnes and Noble are in rapid decline (its stock has tumbled down 72%, from $35 to $10, in the past 5 years) and absolutely have to get a foothold into new markets, regardless of cost, or its over for them.
The NDA is required before even entering to negotiations.
Its common in business to have NDA's covering all aspects of negotiations. In fact, its so gad damned common that there are standard fill-in-the-blank NDA contracts specific to negotiations, available for free.
Your support for this egregious activity is telling.
The only telling thing here is that you act like its uncommon for there to be NDA's when negotiating, when in reality its normal, common, and expected.
Unware of reality much?
And if you're neither of those things then what reason do you have not to release the source with the binary?
Because they don't want to?
You do realize that Freeware predates the open source movement, right?
Dwarf Fortress is a fine example of a closed-source hobby project, released to the world for all to enjoy.
There are only about a million other examples, now stop being an ignorant twat.
Microsoft won't let that happen.
Microsoft, the company that has lobbied for Patent reforms to make our system more like the European system? They are the folks that wont let it happen?
Microsoft is playing the current game because its the game being played currently. It wasnt so long ago that there was a patent cold-war where there were very few patent lawsuits, and never between the big players, because nobody wanted to open that can of worms. Then Apple got into mobile devices and starting suing everyone that dared make anything competitive with iBrand products, and now everyone is suing everyone.
Well, for certain most of these phones are compatible with Exchange ActiveSync.. while not a default feature of Android, phones that can synch with Exchange are very likely to be infringing without a license deal.
(even Google licensed the IP for ActiveSync for their own Google-branded phones)
In February 2009, Google licensed Microsoft's IP for their Google-branded phones. It is for this reason that Microsoft has chosen not to sue Google.
..and each Android phone manufacturer that has made a deal with Microsoft has signed that NDA that you are complaining about.
If you own Barnes and Noble stock you should take pause, because unlike these other companies that have their own IP to throw around, Barnes and Noble has zilch and are also completely inexperienced in these matters. There will be no middle ground, and no late-game IP swaps to minimize monetary damages. Either they will win and its business as usual (losing to Amazon), or they will lose and get raked over the coals (still losing to Amazon, and paying punitive sums of money to Microsoft.)
You can cry fowl about the NDA request, but very large and highly entrenched companies are signing that NDA and then when they see what Microsoft has they end up making a deal. Even Google licensed ActiveSync for its Android phones.
If you read the proposal, it isn't likely to harm hobbyists much -- it basically exempts open source from the requirements.
Fuck those evil closed source hobbyists!! Right? Right???
Not managing costs from more-or-less reasonably expected costs. That's what the thing we call health insurance currently does.
You are completely wrong. Traditional health insurance policies in the United States are all about covering routine costs.
You were describing Catastrophic Health Insurance (aka "High Deductible Insurance") which is not the norm in the United States at all. The norm is the exact opposite.. low deductibles applied to nearly 100% of all doctor visits, mostly routine, and as a result people pay high premiums.
Were you not aware?
With regards to your question... the federal government does not mandate automobile insurance for drivers on the interstates. The federal government mandates compliance with state laws on the interstates, and not all states require automobile insurance (just proof of assets equal to state liability minimums, such as Wisconsin.)
Are you often caught arguing without the facts?
Someone has to pay.
Thats the problem. When someone *has* to pay, providers (not insurance companies) can raise rates like crazy, which is what they have done.
Take a dog to the vet for a broken leg. Observe low price.
Break your own leg and head off to a doctor. Observe high price.
Confess to the doctor that you don't have insurance. Observe medium price.
They don't actually pay for anything
Nobody pays! Yay! Its FREE!
Are you thick?
If a patient does not have health insurance, they are entitled solely to a minimum level of health care in emergency situations to provide "stabilizing care".
Even *with* insurance, thats all that you are "entitled" to. What you are and are not entitled to is entirely specified by law, not private contract.
Thats not what the Democrats wanted when they forced through (only a single Republican vote in both House and Senate, combined) their reforms. They wanted to make everyone send money towards those blue states in New England that have all those massive insurance companies (Hartford, Connecticut is the insurance capital of the world, and the entire region is top-heavy with insurance companies)