I see $50s regularly, butas you said, many people pay with debit and credit cards, simply because (for most of the people I know, anyway) they a) hate carrying around the inevitable pocket of change and b) if they lose their wallet, they can just cancel the card rather than be out $x. Many companies now prefer direct deposit also, so oftentimes there's minimal reason to keep cash on-hand in your daily life unless you specifically want it for whatever reason.
One of my PT jobs still gives paychecks (and cashes them onsite) so I use that cash for gas and food, and my jobs that use direct deposit I reserve for bills or bigger purchases....It's definitely easier to keep yourself disciplined by using cash rather than some debit/credit card that could have any amount of money behind it (or none). I went down the route of loving my credit card, and am paying probably three times my balance in interest because of dumb decisions.
Cash is inconvenient, but provides a nice self-control for itself that most people lack.
Just as an FYI, you won't be able to bring your iPhone to Verizon because each network operates on a completely different frequency. If/when iPhone goes to VZW, it'll have a different antenna than the ATT one.
That could work, except you could then prompt many companies to just move their HQ overseas and do everything in their power to minimize their US presence while maintaining a market in the US.
I actually don't know that one can buy that in Massachusetts. She disappeared though 5 minutes later w/o giving her information.
I did feel bad, though. The family that hit me would have been at fault, regardless. The whole "if you didn't have time to stop, you were following too close and/or weren't taking into consideration the conditions" thing. Their insurance paid for the damage (car was totalled, anyway).
The sad part is that had I hit her, I was so young at the time that I would have had a REAL hard time proving it wasn't my fault I hit her. Day before my birthday, too.:(
Right; it's probably something that varies by locale. I got that same talk about getting a motorcycle. I know someone that does accident reconstruction and he showed me photos of people being "dead right" because of people running red lights and such.
I actually nearly hit a pedestrian that ran out from behind a car jaywalking; she literally bolted out onto the street from behind a van. The only reason I didn't hit her was because she jumped back, and that was going 25-30mph (I stopped ~1m past where she was standing).
Unfortunately, the people behind me still hit me. And there's the lesson on you don't tailgate, especially in a car that weights 2x as much as teh car in front of you...
He would probably be hit with criminal charges as well; based on what state (or even city?) you're in.
To my knowledge, where there's a walk/don't walk signal, pedestrians only have the right of way when it signals WALK (makes sense right?)
Many towns though don't have those, and may give pedestrians at crosswalks the right of way always. I don't know of any areas where a person jaywalking would be considered to have right of way.
That year also had the HUD speedometer, didn't it? I'm pretty sure the 2002 had it anyway, but I could be wrong. I thought that was so futuristic at the time haha.
If nothing else, circumcision has a health benefit as well. It prevents bacteria build-up within the folds of skin. Regardless of the religious reasons behind it, the medical benefits are worth it in the long-term.
Most of the places I've applied to had 3 lists, and you either needed one item from A & B, or one of C. From what I've seen, passports have always been the best form of ID and are (supposed to be) the most secure.
But then, when I first turned 21 and didn't have the "adult" license, I actually got turned away from a bar for having a passport and not an over-21 license. Go figure.
Series like that definitely aren't, but as you said, adults should be able to watch these things, and the people who bring their 7 year-old to Saw are idiots.
I don't understand why parents complain about their kids seeing violent TV when they expose them to it themselves...Regardless of what happens at a friend's house, your child is a product of your parenting. I've met 17 year-olds whose parents still won't let them play M games (for the better), even though they technically can buy them.
Regarding expiration upon death, what if term is reduced BACK to the original 25 or 30 years, and is transferred to the estate/family for the remainder of the term, except when the creator dies within 5 years of the work's creation, and the clock resets to 25 years? That seems like a compromise to me that makes sure people get compensated and that the family can at least partially support itself for a while, as well as opening works up within a a reasonable amount of time.
I'd imagine there is no situation that guarantees the same quantity/quality of works are available, but I don't think the situation would be that detrimental. Expensive stuff becomes riskier, and if anything it pushes companies to reduce the cost of production (whether producers are paid less, or less work goes into post-production), and although quality will surely dip at first, the most profit will be found by getting the most bang for your buck.
The cost of making an album really isn't high. You can get equipment for a few thousand dollars. That leaves distribution/marketing. Outside of the internet, there's no reason why the role of the RIAA can't simply be to provide publishing for a cut of revenue of those physical CDs, as opposed to actually owning the songs and creating 200-page contracts that stipulate those three services. This would eliminate the whole "we sign a band to perform songs written by this random guy" scenario for royalties. The revenues are split between label (or whoever) and band, who each divvy everything up as needed. A band that really wants radio play will manage to get their songs on the radio, and it will probably revert back to radios getting paid to play content.
Beyond that, copyright was never intended to allow a person (or estate or whatever) to profit indefinitely from a work they created, since they are supposedly creating more works to profit from. A song written 30 years ago shouldn't be copyrighted, although a cover of that song performed last year should. A performance of that song from 30 years ago shouldn't be copyright-able either.
The Beatles aren't creating any more art...why should whoever owns their copyrights get paid because their likeness and songs are in Band Hero? It would be like trying to demand payments for using a performance of Beethoven's 9th from 50 years ago. There was a limit set so that after x years, society could use that "stuff" in more creative ways.
I agree with you almost completely, but I Think the distinction should be made between being accused/convicted of copyright infringement and actually committing a "real" crime. To use the road analogy below, you do lose your license if you kill someone with your car. If you're caught hacking Google or stealing financial records, you absolutely should be banned from the internet.
I'd imagine there is no situation that guarantees the same quantity/quality of works are available, but I don't think the situation would be that detrimental. Expensive stuff becomes riskier, and if anything it pushes companies to reduce the cost of production (whether producers are paid less, or less work goes into post-production), and although quality will surely dip at first, the most profit will be found by getting the most bang for your buck.
The cost of making an album really isn't high. You can get equipment for a few thousand dollars. That leaves distribution/marketing. Outside of the internet, there's no reason why the role of the RIAA can't simply be to provide publishing for a cut of revenue of those physical CDs, as opposed to actually owning the songs and creating 200-page contracts that stipulate those three services. This would eliminate the whole "we sign a band to perform songs written by this random guy" scenario for royalties. The revenues are split between label (or whoever) and band, who each divvy everything up as needed. A band that really wants radio play will manage to get their songs on the radio, and it will probably revert back to radios getting paid to play content.
Beyond that, copyright was never intended to allow a person (or estate or whatever) to profit indefinitely from a work they created, since they are supposedly creating more works to profit from. A song written 30 years ago shouldn't be copyrighted, although a cover of that song performed last year should. A performance of that song from 30 years ago shouldn't be copyright-able either.
The Beatles aren't creating any more art...why should whoever owns their copyrights get paid because their likeness and songs are in Band Hero? It would be like trying to demand payments for using a performance of Beethoven's 9th from 50 years ago. There was a limit set so that after x years, society could use that "stuff" in more creative ways.
I stand corrected, then. I heard originally the quotes of $6m and $10m and I thought that was total across the entire organization, not to any individuals.
I would be ecstatic if Congress decided to charge banks 30% interest. It'd probably be terrible for the economy in the short-term, but would be awesome.
IIRC, AIG paid bonuses to the peons of the company that performed adequately, rather than the executives themselves. But I could be mis-remembering the details. At a normal worker's level, the bonuses really do help morale extensively, especially if they weren't aware of what exactly they were doing. It's the execs' responsibility to lead the company effectively.
If they were actually giving themselves bonuses, then never mind anything I just said.
No, and that's already in place. People flag the content as inappropriate, and at that point it gets edited and removed if necessary.Yes, material may have been seen by potentially thousands by the time it comes down, but in any case, the onus is on the SUBMITTER who posted it in the first place.
In order to submit a video, you have to certify that you possess the necessary copyrights and/or permissions to post the video. Processes that work IRL don't necessarily scale, especially in the online world.
If you scaled the same approval process of newspapers, you would have a months-long queue as stated above. Look at any governmental work or approval process. Everything must be approved at multiple levels, and as an anecdote on approval delays, somewhere I worked had a redesigned web site ready to go live ~2.5 years before it was approved.
Technically correct, but you're disagreeing over the wrong point. The account holder IS the editor that decided to publish the video.
A better analogy would be a book: The publisher (Google) isn't held responsible for someone printing a libelous book; the author (account holder) is. Why is it Google's responsibility to verify what's being published? It provides a platform, and in order to use it you are stating that you hold all the relevant permissions and copyrights.
So based on the court's interpretation of this, it still should be on the account holder who LIED when he said he held the relevant permissions.
Google doesn't choose what to "publish" like a newspaper does or a broadcast news network.
Normally I won't defend Gamestop (disclaimer I worked there over the holiday season), but with the edge card you're essentially close to 20% off the new price. A new $60 is $55 used...with the card, you're paying $50. They're more or less priced to help out the edge card subscribers.
The fact it costs $15/year is ridiculous, and the magazine is terrible, but if you're buying/trading in used games regularly, it does pay for itself...the primary benefit of buying used is you get a 7-day trial during which you can return the game.
Also, I can't stress this enough: ASK TO SEE THE DISC BEFORE HANDING OVER MONEY. If it's not satisfactory, ask for another copy of the disc.
Everyone knows GS pushes the scratch protection and subscriptions and that used games are 200%+ profit, but if you play your cards right you can essentially rent your games for free and eliminate most of the risk of buying a brand new game you end up hating.
It simply isn't entrapment, though. The cops are dicks and this case should be thrown out anyway, since (to me) it makes perfect sense that he wanted the car gone. He did call the cops, and they should have simply moved it to a new location. While technically he did commit a felony, given the circumstances I don't think he'll be convicted of anything.
I didn't know that leaving keys in the ignition is a felony in TX. Lots of people up here do that, but granted it's in people's driveways if they're running in and out. I see cops leave their cruisers with the keys on ALL THE TIME though, so go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
I see $50s regularly, butas you said, many people pay with debit and credit cards, simply because (for most of the people I know, anyway) they a) hate carrying around the inevitable pocket of change and b) if they lose their wallet, they can just cancel the card rather than be out $x. Many companies now prefer direct deposit also, so oftentimes there's minimal reason to keep cash on-hand in your daily life unless you specifically want it for whatever reason. One of my PT jobs still gives paychecks (and cashes them onsite) so I use that cash for gas and food, and my jobs that use direct deposit I reserve for bills or bigger purchases. ...It's definitely easier to keep yourself disciplined by using cash rather than some debit/credit card that could have any amount of money behind it (or none). I went down the route of loving my credit card, and am paying probably three times my balance in interest because of dumb decisions.
Cash is inconvenient, but provides a nice self-control for itself that most people lack.
Just as an FYI, you won't be able to bring your iPhone to Verizon because each network operates on a completely different frequency. If/when iPhone goes to VZW, it'll have a different antenna than the ATT one.
That could work, except you could then prompt many companies to just move their HQ overseas and do everything in their power to minimize their US presence while maintaining a market in the US.
I actually don't know that one can buy that in Massachusetts. She disappeared though 5 minutes later w/o giving her information.
:(
I did feel bad, though. The family that hit me would have been at fault, regardless. The whole "if you didn't have time to stop, you were following too close and/or weren't taking into consideration the conditions" thing. Their insurance paid for the damage (car was totalled, anyway).
The sad part is that had I hit her, I was so young at the time that I would have had a REAL hard time proving it wasn't my fault I hit her. Day before my birthday, too.
Right; it's probably something that varies by locale. I got that same talk about getting a motorcycle. I know someone that does accident reconstruction and he showed me photos of people being "dead right" because of people running red lights and such.
I actually nearly hit a pedestrian that ran out from behind a car jaywalking; she literally bolted out onto the street from behind a van. The only reason I didn't hit her was because she jumped back, and that was going 25-30mph (I stopped ~1m past where she was standing).
Unfortunately, the people behind me still hit me. And there's the lesson on you don't tailgate, especially in a car that weights 2x as much as teh car in front of you...
He would probably be hit with criminal charges as well; based on what state (or even city?) you're in.
To my knowledge, where there's a walk/don't walk signal, pedestrians only have the right of way when it signals WALK (makes sense right?)
Many towns though don't have those, and may give pedestrians at crosswalks the right of way always. I don't know of any areas where a person jaywalking would be considered to have right of way.
GM first did it in 1988, as well as on the The Grand Prix in 2001, and the Corvette in 2001. BMW is the first European manufacturer to do it, though.
That year also had the HUD speedometer, didn't it? I'm pretty sure the 2002 had it anyway, but I could be wrong. I thought that was so futuristic at the time haha.
I would weep with joy if mine bought me the Lego Star Destroyer...Sadly after like 3 years I still don't have $500 saved up to buy one. :(
That's single-handedly the greatest Lego set ever.
If nothing else, circumcision has a health benefit as well. It prevents bacteria build-up within the folds of skin. Regardless of the religious reasons behind it, the medical benefits are worth it in the long-term.
Most of the places I've applied to had 3 lists, and you either needed one item from A & B, or one of C. From what I've seen, passports have always been the best form of ID and are (supposed to be) the most secure.
But then, when I first turned 21 and didn't have the "adult" license, I actually got turned away from a bar for having a passport and not an over-21 license. Go figure.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you actually typed all that, or that I could actually read the last sentence...
Series like that definitely aren't, but as you said, adults should be able to watch these things, and the people who bring their 7 year-old to Saw are idiots.
I don't understand why parents complain about their kids seeing violent TV when they expose them to it themselves...Regardless of what happens at a friend's house, your child is a product of your parenting. I've met 17 year-olds whose parents still won't let them play M games (for the better), even though they technically can buy them.
Regarding expiration upon death, what if term is reduced BACK to the original 25 or 30 years, and is transferred to the estate/family for the remainder of the term, except when the creator dies within 5 years of the work's creation, and the clock resets to 25 years? That seems like a compromise to me that makes sure people get compensated and that the family can at least partially support itself for a while, as well as opening works up within a a reasonable amount of time.
I messed up formatting in my other post.
I'd imagine there is no situation that guarantees the same quantity/quality of works are available, but I don't think the situation would be that detrimental. Expensive stuff becomes riskier, and if anything it pushes companies to reduce the cost of production (whether producers are paid less, or less work goes into post-production), and although quality will surely dip at first, the most profit will be found by getting the most bang for your buck.
The cost of making an album really isn't high. You can get equipment for a few thousand dollars. That leaves distribution/marketing. Outside of the internet, there's no reason why the role of the RIAA can't simply be to provide publishing for a cut of revenue of those physical CDs, as opposed to actually owning the songs and creating 200-page contracts that stipulate those three services. This would eliminate the whole "we sign a band to perform songs written by this random guy" scenario for royalties. The revenues are split between label (or whoever) and band, who each divvy everything up as needed. A band that really wants radio play will manage to get their songs on the radio, and it will probably revert back to radios getting paid to play content.
Beyond that, copyright was never intended to allow a person (or estate or whatever) to profit indefinitely from a work they created, since they are supposedly creating more works to profit from. A song written 30 years ago shouldn't be copyrighted, although a cover of that song performed last year should. A performance of that song from 30 years ago shouldn't be copyright-able either.
The Beatles aren't creating any more art...why should whoever owns their copyrights get paid because their likeness and songs are in Band Hero? It would be like trying to demand payments for using a performance of Beethoven's 9th from 50 years ago. There was a limit set so that after x years, society could use that "stuff" in more creative ways.
I agree with you almost completely, but I Think the distinction should be made between being accused/convicted of copyright infringement and actually committing a "real" crime. To use the road analogy below, you do lose your license if you kill someone with your car. If you're caught hacking Google or stealing financial records, you absolutely should be banned from the internet.
I'd imagine there is no situation that guarantees the same quantity/quality of works are available, but I don't think the situation would be that detrimental. Expensive stuff becomes riskier, and if anything it pushes companies to reduce the cost of production (whether producers are paid less, or less work goes into post-production), and although quality will surely dip at first, the most profit will be found by getting the most bang for your buck. The cost of making an album really isn't high. You can get equipment for a few thousand dollars. That leaves distribution/marketing. Outside of the internet, there's no reason why the role of the RIAA can't simply be to provide publishing for a cut of revenue of those physical CDs, as opposed to actually owning the songs and creating 200-page contracts that stipulate those three services. This would eliminate the whole "we sign a band to perform songs written by this random guy" scenario for royalties. The revenues are split between label (or whoever) and band, who each divvy everything up as needed. A band that really wants radio play will manage to get their songs on the radio, and it will probably revert back to radios getting paid to play content. Beyond that, copyright was never intended to allow a person (or estate or whatever) to profit indefinitely from a work they created, since they are supposedly creating more works to profit from. A song written 30 years ago shouldn't be copyrighted, although a cover of that song performed last year should. A performance of that song from 30 years ago shouldn't be copyright-able either. The Beatles aren't creating any more art...why should whoever owns their copyrights get paid because their likeness and songs are in Band Hero? It would be like trying to demand payments for using a performance of Beethoven's 9th from 50 years ago. There was a limit set so that after x years, society could use that "stuff" in more creative ways.
I stand corrected, then. I heard originally the quotes of $6m and $10m and I thought that was total across the entire organization, not to any individuals. I would be ecstatic if Congress decided to charge banks 30% interest. It'd probably be terrible for the economy in the short-term, but would be awesome.
IIRC, AIG paid bonuses to the peons of the company that performed adequately, rather than the executives themselves. But I could be mis-remembering the details. At a normal worker's level, the bonuses really do help morale extensively, especially if they weren't aware of what exactly they were doing. It's the execs' responsibility to lead the company effectively. If they were actually giving themselves bonuses, then never mind anything I just said.
No, and that's already in place. People flag the content as inappropriate, and at that point it gets edited and removed if necessary.Yes, material may have been seen by potentially thousands by the time it comes down, but in any case, the onus is on the SUBMITTER who posted it in the first place. In order to submit a video, you have to certify that you possess the necessary copyrights and/or permissions to post the video. Processes that work IRL don't necessarily scale, especially in the online world. If you scaled the same approval process of newspapers, you would have a months-long queue as stated above. Look at any governmental work or approval process. Everything must be approved at multiple levels, and as an anecdote on approval delays, somewhere I worked had a redesigned web site ready to go live ~2.5 years before it was approved.
Technically correct, but you're disagreeing over the wrong point. The account holder IS the editor that decided to publish the video. A better analogy would be a book: The publisher (Google) isn't held responsible for someone printing a libelous book; the author (account holder) is. Why is it Google's responsibility to verify what's being published? It provides a platform, and in order to use it you are stating that you hold all the relevant permissions and copyrights. So based on the court's interpretation of this, it still should be on the account holder who LIED when he said he held the relevant permissions. Google doesn't choose what to "publish" like a newspaper does or a broadcast news network.
That's the joke.
Woooosh.
Normally I won't defend Gamestop (disclaimer I worked there over the holiday season), but with the edge card you're essentially close to 20% off the new price. A new $60 is $55 used...with the card, you're paying $50. They're more or less priced to help out the edge card subscribers. The fact it costs $15/year is ridiculous, and the magazine is terrible, but if you're buying/trading in used games regularly, it does pay for itself...the primary benefit of buying used is you get a 7-day trial during which you can return the game. Also, I can't stress this enough: ASK TO SEE THE DISC BEFORE HANDING OVER MONEY. If it's not satisfactory, ask for another copy of the disc. Everyone knows GS pushes the scratch protection and subscriptions and that used games are 200%+ profit, but if you play your cards right you can essentially rent your games for free and eliminate most of the risk of buying a brand new game you end up hating.
It simply isn't entrapment, though. The cops are dicks and this case should be thrown out anyway, since (to me) it makes perfect sense that he wanted the car gone. He did call the cops, and they should have simply moved it to a new location. While technically he did commit a felony, given the circumstances I don't think he'll be convicted of anything. I didn't know that leaving keys in the ignition is a felony in TX. Lots of people up here do that, but granted it's in people's driveways if they're running in and out. I see cops leave their cruisers with the keys on ALL THE TIME though, so go figure.