And what do you think about people lending/giving away their (bought) copies of the game? The end result is the same: many more people would get to enjoy a product, without paying for it. And I can't see anything wrong with it in any sense. What makes you think people don't have the right to play the game without paying for it? The only legal right they don't have is creating their own copy of the game. And even that right is supposed to be granted to them after a reasonable period after the game is first created.
Corporations don't decide that they want a margin of % percent. They always increase their margin to the highest possible amount. So don't think that keeping taxes low will do anything to lower prices or increase the wages they pay.
You can't get out of paying taxes by being lucky. When they institute a system where they have a lottery each year to see who is going to be a taxpayer, and even if you are selected you can get out of it by annoying a lawyer, that's when you can compare it to jury duty.
Well a good question bank would probably cover most if not all of the things taught in the course. So learning all the answers wouldn't be much different then just studying.
Got a 99% on the original, but a 60% on the makeup? Gee, I wonder why? No wait... I don't wonder why. I already know. And in the US, failing the makeup that badly under those circumstances is considered enough when combined with all of the other evidence.
What if a student just does badly under pressure?
Let's see, instead of the test merely being part of your grade, it suddenly becomes a 'cheater detection test' and doing badly compared to the first test means that you're likely to get expelled.
Under those conditions, I'd be lucky not to fail the test, even if I got a perfect score the first time around (at least if the test requires some thought and not just memorization).
But what does it say about the professor that he's not even prepared to make up his own questions? Or at least alter the ones found in the question bank enough that memorizing it won't give you an A.
a) You can say anything about anyone without fear of consequences. b) You can say anything, but if it turns out to be a lie you get fined. c) You can't say anything.
They settle. The plaintiff will know that given the size of the possibly punishment, the defendant will be prepared to spend a large percentage of their wealth on defending themselves or counter suing. So they will just offer to settle and get a nice payoff.
The article states that the vaccine will only stop the mosquito from being infected by malaria. So the person vaccinated just protects MOSQUITOES that bite them from being infected.
Some countries set fines as a % of the income/wealth of the person fined. Why do you find that unfair? It makes sure that everyone can afford the fine, while also making sure that no-one can afford to keep getting fined without even noticing the amount they have to pay.
Well half the series was based on the fact they the humans couldn't identify the Cylons living among them. That would be pretty hard to pull of if the Cylons were all 3m tinmen.
It might have reduced production cost, but it also gave the series most of its subject matter.
This vaccine doesn't even protect the person that was vaccinated. All it does is prevent mosquitoes that bite the person from being infected by malaria. So, considering the lifespan of a mosquito, people will constantly have to keep getting these vaccines indeffinitely, if we want to see any benefit whatsoever. Of course this ignores the possibility of mosquitoes being infected before biting a human (monkeys etc).
So yes, cures for people that actually get infected are probably a much better choice then vaccines.
for this method to work, they would need to 'infect' a large percentage of the world population with their antigen, and keep doing it indefinitely, since mosquitoes aren't known for their long life-cycles and this treatment probably isn't hereditary.
So who is going to pay for this? Why waste money vaccinating millions(billions) of people, to reduce infections in the short term sounds like a waste of money that could be better used to cure those already infected.
Anyone that cooperates with an invading force is a collaborator,that's the definition. They don't deserve to die any more than anyone else in a war, but the people they are collaborating against certainly have the right to want them dead.
So why should the world be forced to only sympathize with one party in the conflict?
Now about bringing the nation out of stone age. Which side do you think is trying to do that? Neither one cares about what happens to the people, they just want control. After one gains complete control they might start to work to improve the lives of the people, but at the moment all they care about is wiping out their opponents.
Also how does trying to save your country compare to trying to raise your children? The US didn't stop bombing the country after they made several mistakes that resulted in civilian deaths. So why is releasing some documents so much worse then dropping bombs?
The US/NATO forces in Afghanistan are invaders, so anyone that cooperates with them could be though of as a collaborator. So why should the world care if information about the identity of these 'collaborators' becomes public? Yes they might get killed, but with so many truly innocent people being killed, what makes them special? Both they and their handlers must have know that what they did/do is risky and they still chose to do it.
I don't think it's actually banned, they just ask you to leave if they find out you can do it successfully. They encourage people to try it, as people trying and failing means more cash for the casino.
Slashdot Mirror
And what do you think about people lending/giving away their (bought) copies of the game?
The end result is the same: many more people would get to enjoy a product, without paying for it. And I can't see anything wrong with it in any sense. What makes you think people don't have the right to play the game without paying for it? The only legal right they don't have is creating their own copy of the game. And even that right is supposed to be granted to them after a reasonable period after the game is first created.
Corporations don't decide that they want a margin of % percent. They always increase their margin to the highest possible amount. So don't think that keeping taxes low will do anything to lower prices or increase the wages they pay.
You can't get out of paying taxes by being lucky. When they institute a system where they have a lottery each year to see who is going to be a taxpayer, and even if you are selected you can get out of it by annoying a lawyer, that's when you can compare it to jury duty.
Why burden the employers?
In criminal cases it should the the prosecution that pays the jury. They initiated the trial so why make the juries employers the victims?
Well a good question bank would probably cover most if not all of the things taught in the course. So learning all the answers wouldn't be much different then just studying.
Got a 99% on the original, but a 60% on the makeup? Gee, I wonder why? No wait... I don't wonder why. I already know. And in the US, failing the makeup that badly under those circumstances is considered enough when combined with all of the other evidence.
What if a student just does badly under pressure?
Let's see, instead of the test merely being part of your grade, it suddenly becomes a 'cheater detection test' and doing badly compared to the first test means that you're likely to get expelled.
Under those conditions, I'd be lucky not to fail the test, even if I got a perfect score the first time around (at least if the test requires some thought and not just memorization).
But what does it say about the professor that he's not even prepared to make up his own questions? Or at least alter the ones found in the question bank enough that memorizing it won't give you an A.
Well you have 3 options.
a) You can say anything about anyone without fear of consequences.
b) You can say anything, but if it turns out to be a lie you get fined.
c) You can't say anything.
Personally b seems to be the best option.
Disgusting? Why?
As long as the information is accurate, I'd consider it as a valid tactic to force the debtor to pay.
And the collectors could be encouraged to be thorough in their investigation before posting these claims by high statutory penalties for false claims.
What makes you think I'm a native speaker of english?
They settle. The plaintiff will know that given the size of the possibly punishment, the defendant will be prepared to spend a large percentage of their wealth on defending themselves or counter suing. So they will just offer to settle and get a nice payoff.
The article states that the vaccine will only stop the mosquito from being infected by malaria. So the person vaccinated just protects MOSQUITOES that bite them from being infected.
And will the minimum age earner be able to survive if the has to work X hours per week for community service instead of his/her 3 minimum wage jobs?
Some countries set fines as a % of the income/wealth of the person fined. Why do you find that unfair? It makes sure that everyone can afford the fine, while also making sure that no-one can afford to keep getting fined without even noticing the amount they have to pay.
The rich will still be able to afford enough lawyers to make sure they never loose if they are ever sued for infringement.
Well half the series was based on the fact they the humans couldn't identify the Cylons living among them. That would be pretty hard to pull of if the Cylons were all 3m tinmen.
It might have reduced production cost, but it also gave the series most of its subject matter.
And why is murdering someone for their money somehow better? Or just murdering them because you were bored and they were the first person you met?
This vaccine doesn't even protect the person that was vaccinated.
All it does is prevent mosquitoes that bite the person from being infected by malaria. So, considering the lifespan of a mosquito, people will constantly have to keep getting these vaccines indeffinitely, if we want to see any benefit whatsoever. Of course this ignores the possibility of mosquitoes being infected before biting a human (monkeys etc).
So yes, cures for people that actually get infected are probably a much better choice then vaccines.
for this method to work, they would need to 'infect' a large percentage of the world population with their antigen, and keep doing it indefinitely, since mosquitoes aren't known for their long life-cycles and this treatment probably isn't hereditary.
So who is going to pay for this? Why waste money vaccinating millions(billions) of people, to reduce infections in the short term sounds like a waste of money that could be better used to cure those already infected.
Anyone that cooperates with an invading force is a collaborator,that's the definition. They don't deserve to die any more than anyone else in a war, but the people they are collaborating against certainly have the right to want them dead.
So why should the world be forced to only sympathize with one party in the conflict?
Now about bringing the nation out of stone age. Which side do you think is trying to do that? Neither one cares about what happens to the people, they just want control. After one gains complete control they might start to work to improve the lives of the people, but at the moment all they care about is wiping out their opponents.
Also how does trying to save your country compare to trying to raise your children? The US didn't stop bombing the country after they made several mistakes that resulted in civilian deaths. So why is releasing some documents so much worse then dropping bombs?
The US/NATO forces in Afghanistan are invaders, so anyone that cooperates with them could be though of as a collaborator. So why should the world care if information about the identity of these 'collaborators' becomes public? Yes they might get killed, but with so many truly innocent people being killed, what makes them special? Both they and their handlers must have know that what they did/do is risky and they still chose to do it.
The Taliban aren't the only invaders in the area.
I don't think it's actually banned, they just ask you to leave if they find out you can do it successfully. They encourage people to try it, as people trying and failing means more cash for the casino.
By the time the information is supposed to be declassified, you'll be a drooling vegetable in diapers or dead.
Well the French resistance shot any collaborators they could during the war, and the world didn't exactly condemn the person who exposed them.