They sell her music in order to make a profit, that's a given. There's likely going to be increased interest in that music for a short time.
They could raise the price in expectation that people will pay a little more in the short term. They could lower the price in the expectation that the increased exposure will be generating more potential customers who might buy it if it's cheap enough. They could leave it the same and just bank the increased demand at the current price.
How are any of those options more "evil" than any others? It's all about making money - that's why they sell the music in the first place. Sleazy isn't a symonym for evil and hence isn't a factor.
Sure they could also make it free for a week as a tribute. That would be a nice thing to do. But surely not doing that isn't evil?
Sure if you ignore that they are the exact opposite situations.
One is burning currency because the government is printing so much that it's worthless.
the other is burning currency because the government doesn't want to increase the supply of currency (and hence make it worthless) as it produces new notes.
There's likely going to be a lot ore radio play of Whiney Houston music than usual. There's likely going to be a lot more mention of her in the general media. That will likey result in increased demand for her music, for a short time.
The obvious thing to do when that's likely to happen it to increase the price. That seems like normal rational behaviour rather than evilness.
If you happen to be selling your car and there's some media attention pointing our how wonderful that year and model of car happens to be. Are you evil if you think that maybe it's worth more than you first thought and you increase your asking price?
Of course Sony does enough bad things without needing to count this one...
Just strike out those bits before you sign it - chances are they don't actualy care enough about them to argue.
Of course since you already have, either find out it is overridden by some applicable law or bad luck.
Don't try and "trick" your way around - while chances are they won't care at all if you happen to luck into the next angy birds/minecraft/facebook/google you can bet those tricks won't hold up when the lawyers come.
Because Malaysia has the death penalty, outside of wartime treason, themselves (unlike most western countries, the USA being the only exception) so why wouldn't they extradite somewhere else that also does?
Of course Malaysia isn't a Western country no matter how hard you squint either.
On a side note, Saudi Arabia executed someone for witchcraft last year, so one can only assume the burden of proof isn't exactly high. Or they actually have real live witches casting spells of course...
So X is going to keep my infrastructure up for me because I sepnd $20 on a cert?
Since the obvious case is I'm trying to access my own web server from inside my own network, but it's using https and our external connection is down for some reason. Heck, maybe the cert is on the firewall whose management interface I'm trying to get to over https so I can fix the cause of the external access problem.
Or if you are too lazy to click a link think about it for a second. Hint: should every site with an SSL cert from X not work because X is unreachable for whatever reason right this second?
That's irrelevant, that overvaluedness could have gone into you pockets (you could have issued a smaller percentage of the company for the same amount of capital raising) if the IPO was priced higher to start with.
The big banks want undervalued IPOs. Sure it harms the "client" - but that client is a one off - that "I" part makes it unlikely you'll be doing it again after all.
However, those big institutional investor clients of the big banks - they like seeing the price of the stocks they just bought shoot up fast. And they'll be buying more stocks in future IPOs, so keeping them happy is well worth it.
Hence the big banks like to undervalue IPOs. Of course in this case they're screwing facebook. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy and all...
Europe decided that restricting speech was worth reducing the risk of Orwellian history rewriting and a repeat performance. You can argue that's a bad choice and freedom of speech is more important, but that was the choice made in Europe (well some parts of). Israel isn't part of Europe in the first place.
Or are you trying to say Europe shouldn't feel bad since Israel is nasty anyway and it would have been better if the German's had finished the job?
Of course ignoring that, the German's were actually being successful at their genocide attempt. Whereas, Israel is clearly completely inept given the growth in the Palestenian population (compared with the sharp decline in the Jewish population in the holocaust years).
Sure back then that was considered perverted, so then there was a document saying he was a pervert. But times change, and now all that document says is that he was gay and they didn't think they could get a sodomy conviction.
Sure if was still alive a pardon would actually be worthwhile, but since he isn't all it would do is make the current (and future) British feel better about themselves. But they feel ashamed about it so why would you want to do that?
If there were no criminal charges, then surely that implies there wasn't as much evidence in the second case. Or there were circumstances that lead the authorities to believe they wouldn't get a conviction.
So why would it be strange that the bar punishment would also be at a lower level (they don't have the work of the criminal prosecutors to provide them the grounds for a ore severe punishment after all).
I really don't think anybody's views changed. The people who thought he was a good President before hand still thought he was good.
The people who thought the blowjob was mattered at all (to people other than his family anyway) didn't like him in the first place.
Of course there are a group of people who don't like that he lied about it - but the sex had nothing to do with that.
And no getting the job done isn't the only criteria people care about. Some people think that. Other people consider things like character and would prefer someone they trust to not deceive them more than someone who is better at doing the job.
Of course my subordinates (and boss, though subordinates is the equivalent when you are comparing with others relations to the President) would care if I was getting blowjobs from other subordinates. In fact significant numbers of people would consider it abuse of power and want me to lose that job even if I was the best person at doing the work involved.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoiifBZD4E
Though he's not claiming to have gone through a body scanner with them, just that they were in his bag.
Japan's debt is mostly to themselves. Which makes it far easier to manage on two counts:
1. They can partially default without causing rather large international problems, though that's unlikely due to...
2. If they raise taxes to pay off that debt, then the money goes back into the domestic economy rather than being removed from it.
So selling medicine must be really bad. Profiting when people get sick.
And what about funeral directors? In the incentive to murder people in order to make a buck stakes.
Far more likely they are replacing them with newly printed currency - currency does wear after all.
If they aren't then it's even more the opposite - they are activiely trying to create deflation and really punish those who have taken out loans.
Of course that ignores the not physical currency part of the money supply.
right?
Again, how is that evil?
They sell her music in order to make a profit, that's a given. There's likely going to be increased interest in that music for a short time.
They could raise the price in expectation that people will pay a little more in the short term. They could lower the price in the expectation that the increased exposure will be generating more potential customers who might buy it if it's cheap enough. They could leave it the same and just bank the increased demand at the current price.
How are any of those options more "evil" than any others? It's all about making money - that's why they sell the music in the first place. Sleazy isn't a symonym for evil and hence isn't a factor.
Sure they could also make it free for a week as a tribute. That would be a nice thing to do. But surely not doing that isn't evil?
So they should charge $0 then? Why is the previous price any less "evil" from a supply and demand view than the increased one?
Sure if you ignore that they are the exact opposite situations.
One is burning currency because the government is printing so much that it's worthless.
the other is burning currency because the government doesn't want to increase the supply of currency (and hence make it worthless) as it produces new notes.
How is that evil?
There's likely going to be a lot ore radio play of Whiney Houston music than usual. There's likely going to be a lot more mention of her in the general media. That will likey result in increased demand for her music, for a short time.
The obvious thing to do when that's likely to happen it to increase the price. That seems like normal rational behaviour rather than evilness.
If you happen to be selling your car and there's some media attention pointing our how wonderful that year and model of car happens to be. Are you evil if you think that maybe it's worth more than you first thought and you increase your asking price?
Of course Sony does enough bad things without needing to count this one...
Just strike out those bits before you sign it - chances are they don't actualy care enough about them to argue.
Of course since you already have, either find out it is overridden by some applicable law or bad luck.
Don't try and "trick" your way around - while chances are they won't care at all if you happen to luck into the next angy birds/minecraft/facebook/google you can bet those tricks won't hold up when the lawyers come.
As you said, which isn't Western.
Belarus would also be arguable, but again being old Soviet Union would not be Western...
Because Malaysia has the death penalty, outside of wartime treason, themselves (unlike most western countries, the USA being the only exception) so why wouldn't they extradite somewhere else that also does?
Of course Malaysia isn't a Western country no matter how hard you squint either.
On a side note, Saudi Arabia executed someone for witchcraft last year, so one can only assume the burden of proof isn't exactly high. Or they actually have real live witches casting spells of course...
http://www.khanacademy.org/about/the-team
How are the 17 tow trucks supposed to race to each accident if they can't listen in on the damn police radio???
Society will collapse!!!
And that isn't what the guy is suggesting, because???
So X is going to keep my infrastructure up for me because I sepnd $20 on a cert?
Since the obvious case is I'm trying to access my own web server from inside my own network, but it's using https and our external connection is down for some reason. Heck, maybe the cert is on the firewall whose management interface I'm trying to get to over https so I can fix the cause of the external access problem.
Why not read the blog post?
Or if you are too lazy to click a link think about it for a second. Hint: should every site with an SSL cert from X not work because X is unreachable for whatever reason right this second?
That's irrelevant, that overvaluedness could have gone into you pockets (you could have issued a smaller percentage of the company for the same amount of capital raising) if the IPO was priced higher to start with.
The big banks want undervalued IPOs. Sure it harms the "client" - but that client is a one off - that "I" part makes it unlikely you'll be doing it again after all.
However, those big institutional investor clients of the big banks - they like seeing the price of the stocks they just bought shoot up fast. And they'll be buying more stocks in future IPOs, so keeping them happy is well worth it.
Hence the big banks like to undervalue IPOs. Of course in this case they're screwing facebook. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy and all...
Sure, that's your view. Some european countries took a different view.
It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with any actions by Israel.
How is one related to the other in the slightest?
Europe decided that restricting speech was worth reducing the risk of Orwellian history rewriting and a repeat performance. You can argue that's a bad choice and freedom of speech is more important, but that was the choice made in Europe (well some parts of). Israel isn't part of Europe in the first place.
Or are you trying to say Europe shouldn't feel bad since Israel is nasty anyway and it would have been better if the German's had finished the job?
Of course ignoring that, the German's were actually being successful at their genocide attempt. Whereas, Israel is clearly completely inept given the growth in the Palestenian population (compared with the sharp decline in the Jewish population in the holocaust years).
How is that not saying he is gay?
Sure back then that was considered perverted, so then there was a document saying he was a pervert. But times change, and now all that document says is that he was gay and they didn't think they could get a sodomy conviction.
Sure if was still alive a pardon would actually be worthwhile, but since he isn't all it would do is make the current (and future) British feel better about themselves. But they feel ashamed about it so why would you want to do that?
I'm replying to the stole $30,000 comment, not the details of the story...
If there were no criminal charges, then surely that implies there wasn't as much evidence in the second case. Or there were circumstances that lead the authorities to believe they wouldn't get a conviction.
So why would it be strange that the bar punishment would also be at a lower level (they don't have the work of the criminal prosecutors to provide them the grounds for a ore severe punishment after all).
I really don't think anybody's views changed. The people who thought he was a good President before hand still thought he was good.
The people who thought the blowjob was mattered at all (to people other than his family anyway) didn't like him in the first place.
Of course there are a group of people who don't like that he lied about it - but the sex had nothing to do with that.
And no getting the job done isn't the only criteria people care about. Some people think that. Other people consider things like character and would prefer someone they trust to not deceive them more than someone who is better at doing the job.
Of course my subordinates (and boss, though subordinates is the equivalent when you are comparing with others relations to the President) would care if I was getting blowjobs from other subordinates. In fact significant numbers of people would consider it abuse of power and want me to lose that job even if I was the best person at doing the work involved.
You know those people who claim the Earth is 10,000 years old? You are twice as wrong as them.
Do you think about your answers for even a split second to see if they make any sense at all?