A quick google search for 'what is the origin of the dollar sign' turned up
http://130.88.203.73/asktheexperts/faq/aboutsymb ol s/dollarsign
What is the origin of the dollar sign ($)?
There have been several theories to account for the symbol $, which was in use long before the introduction of the American currency. Most probably it was an adaptation of the figure `8', representing the Spanish `piece of eight' or eight-real coin.
The name `dollar', however, derives from the Dutch or Low German word daler (in German taler or thaler) - originally Joachimstaler, referring to a coin from the silver mines of Joachimstal, in Bohemia (now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic), which opened in 1516.
Or.. From another site.......
Information on the origin of the symbol for the dollar.
As it turns out, the symbol ($) comes from Spain. the II upon the S
represented the Pillars of Hercules, upon which rests the Spanish
coat of arms. The S came about from the plural for Dollars or Pesos.
In Spanish 1 Dolar, 2 Dolares, 1 Peso, 2 Pesos etc. hence the S. To
identify the United States dollar from all other dollars the S was
superimposed with a U. Hence a US Dollar. In time, people not
understanding the origin and / or due to unclear hand writing, the U
was replaced with II. More time elapsed and to speed up the writing
process, the II became a single I as in $. Now that the $ is
built into virtually all computers, the evolution will probably
stop.
As for how the US came about acquiring the denomination, the
Spanish Embassy in Washington said that when the War of
Independence began, they soon realised how they needed to mint
money which would be recognised as legal tender by the US' allies.
France was approached and asked for permission to base the US
currency on the French 'Livres'. France said no. Then the US' other
ally, Spain, was approached. The Spanish Cortes (Parliament) decided
they would allow the US to base their national currency on the
Spanish Silver Dollar (Dolar de Plata), already in circulation in many
Southern States. However, it appears that the Spanish term 'Dolar'
was derived from the word 'dollar'. So the word itself comes from
somewhere else. The origin of the word 'dollar' is often attributed to
the Bohemian 'taler' (short for joachimstaler from Sankt Joachimsthal
where talers were first made). The Spanish Silver Dollar ('piece of
eight') was patterned after the taler. So I guess we owe Spain and
Bohemia our monetary units. I hope you find this topic as interesting
as I do.
No, actually $ is used by Austrlia, Singapore, Canada, just off the top of my head. So running an aussie publication and saying '$' would imply it was australian dollars, quite a difference from US$.
Just as the Pound symbol is used by the UK and Ireland (and no, they aren't the same thing)
This is where Vegas is gonna lose out, and where North America (and many other states) are missing out.
1) Don't tax the people, tax the casinos. But that doesn't work if you forbid online casinos from operating in your country.
The problem is that online casinos need basically the same license as a meatspace casino to operate, and jurisdictions are not going to let it happen. THey don't realize that the laws are antiquated.
A casino/sportsbook that operates online is just as accessible to americans if the servers are in Antigua as it is if they are in Vegas, or California. IT makes absolutely NO difference as to who can gamble there. The only difference is that, if you chase the business offshore, you lose out on taxing the business, on on the jobs it would create.
Taxing people is a different matter; I'm happy I'm Canadian, and gambling winnings are not taxable. Not lotteries, not casinos, trips to vegas, whatever... not taxable.
First off, this is not as simple as saying 'they can all welch on their debts'. They can't. Here's why.
First, we have to assume that payment was made to the casino/sportsbook via credit card (because if it was a cash or wire transfer, there would be nothing to refute, it'd be a done deal, right?)
Online gambling operations, at least, the successful ones, firstly, have fairly low credit card limits. You'd be surprised how low. You can only put so much a day and a month into the account.
Rule #1 with Visa (for example, insert other card names as you wish) is that, if you authorized the transaction, then the transaction goes through. You cannot later refute it saying 'I changed my mind'.
Now, you COULD point out that, as gambling is illegal, Visa lending you money for gambling (presuming they knew the merchant was a gambling operation) might be determined illegal, and you might get off on the debt (and lose your credit card, and credit rating, of course). This is what happened in California that one time; some lady had her $50,000 debt to Visa overturned because lending money for gambling is illegal in California, and Visa knew what the merchant was doing.
3) By trying to cancel your bet, you are also presumably admitting to illegally gambling. I don't know what penalties are for this, if any, but...
4) Most online gamblers, the ones the online shops like, are addicts. If you mess over the sportsbook you are betting at by welching on your bet, do you think you will be allowed to bet there again? Do you think they won't share your name and info with other operations? Where are you gonna get your fix? The truth is, many people WILL pay up, though I'm sure some guy who first-times it in and blows his life savings will use this as a loophole and get away with it.
It leaves VA in the same place they always were. They must provide warrantee and support as specified in the contract of sale.
VA is not dissolving; they are just ceasing to sell hardware.
YEs, but didn't you read? Revenue is != Profit.
The burn rate for hardware is higher than that for their other operations... they will LOSE less money by NOT doing hardware business.
I can have a rock solid revenue stream, as the previous poster said, by selling dollars for 99c, but I'll *never* be profitable.
Delta Hotels International announced today it will be leaving the hotel business and instead concentrating on it's online 'global hotel reservation' website, as well as it's accommodation forums.
American Airlines has announced it will cease operation of it's fleet, and, instead, spend it's time and money working on an online set of websites where peopel can discuss issues related to travel.
Microsoft has announced it will be leaving the software business (yay) and solely making it's living off MSN(tm)Messenger(tm)
Yes, my point was simply that it shouldn't necessarily be banks in the middle of it all (I don't like banks, can you tell?). I'd rather see competing micropyament providers.
I wasn't implying that checking had a fee, only that I find it hard to beleive there isn't SOME fee associated with your having a bank account. In these days of Plus/Cirrus/Interac, there are fees all over the places just for the previlege of carrying money.
They can technically hold me liable for $50 of any charges incurred in between the time my card is physically stolen, and when I tell them about it. And most, as you say, don't even bother anyway.
You do have one point; if you rely on your credit card for your date at the restaurant, this can be an inconvenience. That's one reason for carrying two cards I guess.
Also, if you find your credit company is not extremely easy to deal with on the phone, low hold times, polite and prompt answers to your questions, then cancel it and get a new one. YOU are their customer, and they know it.
Also.. why do I have to give passport my credit card number? I don't.
1) ucsimm does not make it that obvious what license it is under. I had to hunt a bit. That's not an excuse, just a point.
2) It doesn't mean he now HAS to relase his code; it means he has to release it if he distributes this. He can always decide, upon reflection, that he does not like the terms of the GPL and stop distributing it.
3) What he is enabling people to do is legal where he is. It's hardly pircay when you can't buy it in the first place.
4) Exactly what does 'based on' mean? How much of it is based on? Are portions of the code GPL? Does he have permission from Daniel Drotos to do this? If so, the GPL is moot.
Also.. and you know, I know I'm asking for it here.
Regardless of how much we want it to, the GPL is still just a contract. Some people will ignore it. If they are a company, maybe we can do something. IF its' one rogue hacker, what are you gonna do? Sue him? Gimme a break.
In order to show theft, you have to show a loss. If someone stole the picture of your aunt martha, even though it has no market value, it has a demonstratable value to you.
In the case of TV signal though, nothing has been 'taken away', and the only way, I believe, the company in question could show 'theft' is by showing lost profits. In this case, they have no license to sell or broadcast in Canada, therefore, there are no lost profits.
If you don't want us to receive your signals, don't send them into our country.
Regarding micropayments - paypal is not a micropayment system. It does not allow me to simply and easily pay $0.25 to view a page, or download the latest copy of winamp, or whatever.
Regarding banks: Why do the banks *have* to be at the center of it all the time? I know they are, but let's remember, the bank does not have a god-given right to make money off every human money transaction. I should be able to pay you without paying someone else a fee as well; or at least, not just paying the bank. A competitive market of micropayment providers would be good, all linked together.
Also, regarding not using credit cards: There are two reasons to use a credit card, in real life, for me.
One, is of course, credit. To spend money I don't have, to even out my cashflow. I can pay to have my car fixed even though I'm out of cash, and then pay off the debt when I get paid. That's the 'credit' part.
The other is service. The credit card is only a token; it belongs to the credit company. It's a token that, accompanied by my signature or other method, is used to prove to the credit company that I am using the credit they extend me. If someone guesses/copies that number somehow and uses it, its' NOT MY PROBLEM AT ALL. If they steal my physical card, its' my problem up to $50, or until I tell the credit company the card has been physically stolen. Fair enough; I should take measures to make sure it doesn't get physically stolen. In the online world, this is the important part. It gives me buffer time to cancel transactions and not have my bank account drained.
Believe me, if you dispute a transaction, the credit company will immediately halt it, and ask the merchant to verify it. If the merchant still insists it was you who did it, they will make the merchant PROVE that it was you, and barring your signature on the slip or good shipped to an address owned by you, or where they can prove you were staying, they won't have much luck.
Good luck.
A cheque is a monetary insturment instrcting the bank to transfer funds. Once they go through, you can't reverse them. You can't change them. The money is gone. I rather like the credit system.
Sure, they don't charge you for paying others from your paypal account, but they charge those others $.30 for each trasaction, plus their percentage, and that's the problem.
What if I want to charge $.50 for access to my web page, for some special info I have there daily? Paypal will take over 60% of that as a fee.. it's not feasible for me to do it. Paypal is no good for micropayment.
Well, how do you get money into your paypal account for use, if not by credit card?
Also, paypal charges $.30 a transaction, plus 2% or something for premier/business accounts (personal normal accounts have no $.30 fee, but are very limited in how much funds they can receive each month). THat elimenates their use for micropayment right there.
He did not say they were in place, and did not claim to invent them. He was simply showing people who only know the word 'micropayment' as a buzzword, how things would actually work, and why.
How is this any different than any other reporter doing up an article on micropayments, and painting a scenario?
He didn't claim to invent it, to take credit for it, or anything else.. he only discussed it.
And where, pray-tel, are micropayments already in place?
I checked; it says on my credit card that the credit card is the property of the issuer. That means it doesn't belong to me.
The accompanying contract I received when I was sent the card said that my only responsibility was to report to them if the CARD was stolen, or any fraudulent charges, and they would be refunded.
I have done so in the past with no problems.
So really, I don't *care* if some site is compromised and they steal the banks credit card... all I am inconvenienced by is one phone call to tell them my card has been compromised, and to send me a new one. IT's the banks' problem, not mine.
People should quit spreading the myth that credit card info is somehow your personal asset... it's not. This is not on the same level as somsone stealing your cash.
And you've *already* given the MS people your info, how else did you get an MSDN subscription in the first place?
Well, if I think about this..
To get an MSDN subscription, you *have* to tell microsoft all this stuff about you anyway, so they already know it, right? You can't just get MSDN anonymously.
And they want you to authenticate with them when you sign in, right?
What's wrong with doing so with passport? You don't *have* to use it for anything else if you don't want to.
Scanners with cellular frequencies are illegal *in the united states only*. The only reason many Canadian stores carry scanners that don't have these frequencies as well is because they are manufactured in the states.
It is perfectly legal for us to have unblocked scanners that cover *any* frequencies. The same goes for most of the rest of the free world anyway.
When the cellular companies lobbied to have this chagned here, the CRTC and others said simply (and rightly so) 'the radio spectrum is a public resource, it belongs to the people. We only regulate who can transmit, that's it'
Go check out winradio.com, and look at their models. It's only the US that has to have certain frequencies 'blocked'.
Also, as Canadians, we are *not allowed* to buy direcTV. DirecTV is NOT ALLOWED to sell television to us, they have no license to broadcast in Canada. You are NOT subsidizing anything as a paying customer; we are not part of their marketshare, and not part of their business plan. There is no 'lost revenue', they don't even try to say there is any. They DO NOT CARE. We just happen to be able to pick up their programming.
Actually, to us Canucks, it's NOT stealing, and here's why.
We are *NOT* allowed to pay for it, and they are NOT allowed to sell it to us, in Canada, therefore, we aren't taking away from anyone's market share.
We are not allowed to buy it IF WE WANT TO. This has been the case with many satellite things in the past; it's not legal for those companies to market or sell their 'product' in canada; this is what makes satellite descrambling of American broadcasts a grey-market business. It's kind of illegal, in that there are laws about descrambling television broadcasts, but on the flip side, those companies cannot claim lost revenue or anything, as tehy are forbidden from selling here.
IT could be seen as 'subsurface' yes.. but railroad spikes also technically go beneath the surface. So does the foundation of a small switching equipment shed, or a telephone pole erected alon gthe railline, that may go 10 feet into the ground.
The point is, 'surface rights' basically means, by legal definition, that NO rights to minerals or other land-ownership-type rights are granted.
The point in the case, is that a bunch of lawyers are not contesting that the rail companies were allowed to bury the cable, but that the cable is now a 'subsurface resource' and therefore belongs to the farmers. It's a dodgy argument at best. Surface rights does not mean, specifically, 'nothing may go beneath the surface'.
Doubtful it would hold up in court; the companies will probably settle out of court to avoid litigation though.
Is this good for the stakeholders in google? Probably. I cannot fault them for wanting to make a quick buck, and that's what this will be about, don't kid yourself.
I feel that this is their right; they built google, those who backed it so far deserve to make money off it if they can.
However, once this becomes public, any particular morals or ways in which the original people wanted to run it go out the door. The shareholders have a right to demand value, and that means google will have to sacrifice whatever it wants in order to increase revenue; it won't be enough to simply employ X people paid Y dollars a year in prepetuity; they will HAVE to show increased profits and growth. THat's the downfall of many public companies; the fact that, once public, they MUST grow. Even if they don't every attempt will be made to grow them until they die. It is not acceptable for a public company to sit and just keep up with inflation, and employ it's people; that's their fundamental problem.
Actually...
that's because the leases ONLY included surface rights, and a bunch of lawyers are debating whether burying cable is a 'surface' thing or not.
I'm gonna bet that it is; surface rights was intended so they oculd use the land, but not have mineral rights, etc. So if gold is discovered beneath the track, the railway gets no benefit from it.
Actually, I believe the lawyers are not objecting to the cable being buried, but saying, that once it's there, it's a resource beneath these people's land that they shoudl be paying for, just as if it were buried gold.
1) If you are going to lay fiber, you're going to lay LOTS of fiber, not just a couple strands, even if you don't yet know how or when you are going to use the excess. The incremental cost of doing this is negligible.
2) You are not just going to sell that excess fiber off to other parties once you lay it, you'd rather keep it for yourself. Selling it off can set precedent, especially in the regulated telecom industry, and you may not be able to reclaim it in the future.
3) Internet bandwidth shortage? Come on. There is LOTS of bandwidth available; if bandwidth doubled, would profits double? No. Until lack of bandwidth starts hurting profits, there will not be more bandwidth... that's how things work in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick google search for 'what is the origin of the dollar sign' turned upb ol s/dollarsign
http://130.88.203.73/asktheexperts/faq/aboutsym
What is the origin of the dollar sign ($)?
There have been several theories to account for the symbol $, which was in use long before the introduction of the American currency. Most probably it was an adaptation of the figure `8', representing the Spanish `piece of eight' or eight-real coin.
The name `dollar', however, derives from the Dutch or Low German word daler (in German taler or thaler) - originally Joachimstaler, referring to a coin from the silver mines of Joachimstal, in Bohemia (now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic), which opened in 1516.
Or.. From another site.......
Information on the origin of the symbol for the dollar.
As it turns out, the symbol ($) comes from Spain. the II upon the S
represented the Pillars of Hercules, upon which rests the Spanish
coat of arms. The S came about from the plural for Dollars or Pesos.
In Spanish 1 Dolar, 2 Dolares, 1 Peso, 2 Pesos etc. hence the S. To
identify the United States dollar from all other dollars the S was
superimposed with a U. Hence a US Dollar. In time, people not
understanding the origin and / or due to unclear hand writing, the U
was replaced with II. More time elapsed and to speed up the writing
process, the II became a single I as in $. Now that the $ is
built into virtually all computers, the evolution will probably
stop.
As for how the US came about acquiring the denomination, the
Spanish Embassy in Washington said that when the War of
Independence began, they soon realised how they needed to mint
money which would be recognised as legal tender by the US' allies.
France was approached and asked for permission to base the US
currency on the French 'Livres'. France said no. Then the US' other
ally, Spain, was approached. The Spanish Cortes (Parliament) decided
they would allow the US to base their national currency on the
Spanish Silver Dollar (Dolar de Plata), already in circulation in many
Southern States. However, it appears that the Spanish term 'Dolar'
was derived from the word 'dollar'. So the word itself comes from
somewhere else. The origin of the word 'dollar' is often attributed to
the Bohemian 'taler' (short for joachimstaler from Sankt Joachimsthal
where talers were first made). The Spanish Silver Dollar ('piece of
eight') was patterned after the taler. So I guess we owe Spain and
Bohemia our monetary units. I hope you find this topic as interesting
as I do.
No, actually $ is used by Austrlia, Singapore, Canada, just off the top of my head. So running an aussie publication and saying '$' would imply it was australian dollars, quite a difference from US$.
Just as the Pound symbol is used by the UK and Ireland (and no, they aren't the same thing)
This is where Vegas is gonna lose out, and where North America (and many other states) are missing out.
1) Don't tax the people, tax the casinos. But that doesn't work if you forbid online casinos from operating in your country.
The problem is that online casinos need basically the same license as a meatspace casino to operate, and jurisdictions are not going to let it happen. THey don't realize that the laws are antiquated.
A casino/sportsbook that operates online is just as accessible to americans if the servers are in Antigua as it is if they are in Vegas, or California. IT makes absolutely NO difference as to who can gamble there. The only difference is that, if you chase the business offshore, you lose out on taxing the business, on on the jobs it would create.
Taxing people is a different matter; I'm happy I'm Canadian, and gambling winnings are not taxable. Not lotteries, not casinos, trips to vegas, whatever... not taxable.
First off, this is not as simple as saying 'they can all welch on their debts'. They can't. Here's why.
First, we have to assume that payment was made to the casino/sportsbook via credit card (because if it was a cash or wire transfer, there would be nothing to refute, it'd be a done deal, right?)
Online gambling operations, at least, the successful ones, firstly, have fairly low credit card limits. You'd be surprised how low. You can only put so much a day and a month into the account.
Rule #1 with Visa (for example, insert other card names as you wish) is that, if you authorized the transaction, then the transaction goes through. You cannot later refute it saying 'I changed my mind'.
Now, you COULD point out that, as gambling is illegal, Visa lending you money for gambling (presuming they knew the merchant was a gambling operation) might be determined illegal, and you might get off on the debt (and lose your credit card, and credit rating, of course). This is what happened in California that one time; some lady had her $50,000 debt to Visa overturned because lending money for gambling is illegal in California, and Visa knew what the merchant was doing.
3) By trying to cancel your bet, you are also presumably admitting to illegally gambling. I don't know what penalties are for this, if any, but...
4) Most online gamblers, the ones the online shops like, are addicts. If you mess over the sportsbook you are betting at by welching on your bet, do you think you will be allowed to bet there again? Do you think they won't share your name and info with other operations? Where are you gonna get your fix? The truth is, many people WILL pay up, though I'm sure some guy who first-times it in and blows his life savings will use this as a loophole and get away with it.
It's napster's servers.. they can do whatever they want.
It leaves VA in the same place they always were. They must provide warrantee and support as specified in the contract of sale.
VA is not dissolving; they are just ceasing to sell hardware.
YEs, but didn't you read? Revenue is != Profit.
The burn rate for hardware is higher than that for their other operations... they will LOSE less money by NOT doing hardware business.
I can have a rock solid revenue stream, as the previous poster said, by selling dollars for 99c, but I'll *never* be profitable.
Delta Hotels International announced today it will be leaving the hotel business and instead concentrating on it's online 'global hotel reservation' website, as well as it's accommodation forums.
American Airlines has announced it will cease operation of it's fleet, and, instead, spend it's time and money working on an online set of websites where peopel can discuss issues related to travel.
Microsoft has announced it will be leaving the software business (yay) and solely making it's living off MSN(tm)Messenger(tm)
Sheesh. Bye VA.
Yes, my point was simply that it shouldn't necessarily be banks in the middle of it all (I don't like banks, can you tell?). I'd rather see competing micropyament providers.
I wasn't implying that checking had a fee, only that I find it hard to beleive there isn't SOME fee associated with your having a bank account. In these days of Plus/Cirrus/Interac, there are fees all over the places just for the previlege of carrying money.
They can technically hold me liable for $50 of any charges incurred in between the time my card is physically stolen, and when I tell them about it. And most, as you say, don't even bother anyway.
You do have one point; if you rely on your credit card for your date at the restaurant, this can be an inconvenience. That's one reason for carrying two cards I guess.
Also, if you find your credit company is not extremely easy to deal with on the phone, low hold times, polite and prompt answers to your questions, then cancel it and get a new one. YOU are their customer, and they know it.
Also.. why do I have to give passport my credit card number? I don't.
Yes. You are right. Two points to consider.
1) ucsimm does not make it that obvious what license it is under. I had to hunt a bit. That's not an excuse, just a point.
2) It doesn't mean he now HAS to relase his code; it means he has to release it if he distributes this. He can always decide, upon reflection, that he does not like the terms of the GPL and stop distributing it.
3) What he is enabling people to do is legal where he is. It's hardly pircay when you can't buy it in the first place.
4) Exactly what does 'based on' mean? How much of it is based on? Are portions of the code GPL? Does he have permission from Daniel Drotos to do this? If so, the GPL is moot.
Also.. and you know, I know I'm asking for it here.
Regardless of how much we want it to, the GPL is still just a contract. Some people will ignore it. If they are a company, maybe we can do something. IF its' one rogue hacker, what are you gonna do? Sue him? Gimme a break.
In order to show theft, you have to show a loss. If someone stole the picture of your aunt martha, even though it has no market value, it has a demonstratable value to you.
In the case of TV signal though, nothing has been 'taken away', and the only way, I believe, the company in question could show 'theft' is by showing lost profits. In this case, they have no license to sell or broadcast in Canada, therefore, there are no lost profits.
If you don't want us to receive your signals, don't send them into our country.
Regarding micropayments - paypal is not a micropayment system. It does not allow me to simply and easily pay $0.25 to view a page, or download the latest copy of winamp, or whatever.
Regarding banks: Why do the banks *have* to be at the center of it all the time? I know they are, but let's remember, the bank does not have a god-given right to make money off every human money transaction. I should be able to pay you without paying someone else a fee as well; or at least, not just paying the bank. A competitive market of micropayment providers would be good, all linked together.
Also, regarding not using credit cards: There are two reasons to use a credit card, in real life, for me.
One, is of course, credit. To spend money I don't have, to even out my cashflow. I can pay to have my car fixed even though I'm out of cash, and then pay off the debt when I get paid. That's the 'credit' part.
The other is service. The credit card is only a token; it belongs to the credit company. It's a token that, accompanied by my signature or other method, is used to prove to the credit company that I am using the credit they extend me. If someone guesses/copies that number somehow and uses it, its' NOT MY PROBLEM AT ALL. If they steal my physical card, its' my problem up to $50, or until I tell the credit company the card has been physically stolen. Fair enough; I should take measures to make sure it doesn't get physically stolen. In the online world, this is the important part. It gives me buffer time to cancel transactions and not have my bank account drained.
Believe me, if you dispute a transaction, the credit company will immediately halt it, and ask the merchant to verify it. If the merchant still insists it was you who did it, they will make the merchant PROVE that it was you, and barring your signature on the slip or good shipped to an address owned by you, or where they can prove you were staying, they won't have much luck.
Good luck.
A cheque is a monetary insturment instrcting the bank to transfer funds. Once they go through, you can't reverse them. You can't change them. The money is gone. I rather like the credit system.
Sure, they don't charge you for paying others from your paypal account, but they charge those others $.30 for each trasaction, plus their percentage, and that's the problem.
What if I want to charge $.50 for access to my web page, for some special info I have there daily? Paypal will take over 60% of that as a fee.. it's not feasible for me to do it. Paypal is no good for micropayment.
Well, how do you get money into your paypal account for use, if not by credit card?
Also, paypal charges $.30 a transaction, plus 2% or something for premier/business accounts (personal normal accounts have no $.30 fee, but are very limited in how much funds they can receive each month). THat elimenates their use for micropayment right there.
He did not say they were in place, and did not claim to invent them. He was simply showing people who only know the word 'micropayment' as a buzzword, how things would actually work, and why.
How is this any different than any other reporter doing up an article on micropayments, and painting a scenario?
He didn't claim to invent it, to take credit for it, or anything else.. he only discussed it.
And where, pray-tel, are micropayments already in place?
I checked; it says on my credit card that the credit card is the property of the issuer. That means it doesn't belong to me.
The accompanying contract I received when I was sent the card said that my only responsibility was to report to them if the CARD was stolen, or any fraudulent charges, and they would be refunded.
I have done so in the past with no problems.
So really, I don't *care* if some site is compromised and they steal the banks credit card... all I am inconvenienced by is one phone call to tell them my card has been compromised, and to send me a new one. IT's the banks' problem, not mine.
People should quit spreading the myth that credit card info is somehow your personal asset... it's not. This is not on the same level as somsone stealing your cash.
And you've *already* given the MS people your info, how else did you get an MSDN subscription in the first place?
Well, if I think about this..
To get an MSDN subscription, you *have* to tell microsoft all this stuff about you anyway, so they already know it, right? You can't just get MSDN anonymously.
And they want you to authenticate with them when you sign in, right?
What's wrong with doing so with passport? You don't *have* to use it for anything else if you don't want to.
Scanners with cellular frequencies are illegal *in the united states only*. The only reason many Canadian stores carry scanners that don't have these frequencies as well is because they are manufactured in the states.
It is perfectly legal for us to have unblocked scanners that cover *any* frequencies. The same goes for most of the rest of the free world anyway.
When the cellular companies lobbied to have this chagned here, the CRTC and others said simply (and rightly so) 'the radio spectrum is a public resource, it belongs to the people. We only regulate who can transmit, that's it'
Go check out winradio.com, and look at their models. It's only the US that has to have certain frequencies 'blocked'.
Also, as Canadians, we are *not allowed* to buy direcTV. DirecTV is NOT ALLOWED to sell television to us, they have no license to broadcast in Canada. You are NOT subsidizing anything as a paying customer; we are not part of their marketshare, and not part of their business plan. There is no 'lost revenue', they don't even try to say there is any. They DO NOT CARE. We just happen to be able to pick up their programming.
Actually, to us Canucks, it's NOT stealing, and here's why.
We are *NOT* allowed to pay for it, and they are NOT allowed to sell it to us, in Canada, therefore, we aren't taking away from anyone's market share.
We are not allowed to buy it IF WE WANT TO. This has been the case with many satellite things in the past; it's not legal for those companies to market or sell their 'product' in canada; this is what makes satellite descrambling of American broadcasts a grey-market business. It's kind of illegal, in that there are laws about descrambling television broadcasts, but on the flip side, those companies cannot claim lost revenue or anything, as tehy are forbidden from selling here.
In the US anyway, totally illegal, and you could tentatively get in DEEP shit for running a server like this.
Yes, people have always done this.. with old dishes it was with modems, before that, just codes faxed over.
I fully support doing cool hacks.. BUT...
This is blatantly 'how to steal DirecTV'. Silly.
IT could be seen as 'subsurface' yes.. but railroad spikes also technically go beneath the surface. So does the foundation of a small switching equipment shed, or a telephone pole erected alon gthe railline, that may go 10 feet into the ground.
The point is, 'surface rights' basically means, by legal definition, that NO rights to minerals or other land-ownership-type rights are granted.
The point in the case, is that a bunch of lawyers are not contesting that the rail companies were allowed to bury the cable, but that the cable is now a 'subsurface resource' and therefore belongs to the farmers. It's a dodgy argument at best. Surface rights does not mean, specifically, 'nothing may go beneath the surface'.
Doubtful it would hold up in court; the companies will probably settle out of court to avoid litigation though.
Is this good for the stakeholders in google? Probably. I cannot fault them for wanting to make a quick buck, and that's what this will be about, don't kid yourself.
I feel that this is their right; they built google, those who backed it so far deserve to make money off it if they can.
However, once this becomes public, any particular morals or ways in which the original people wanted to run it go out the door. The shareholders have a right to demand value, and that means google will have to sacrifice whatever it wants in order to increase revenue; it won't be enough to simply employ X people paid Y dollars a year in prepetuity; they will HAVE to show increased profits and growth. THat's the downfall of many public companies; the fact that, once public, they MUST grow. Even if they don't every attempt will be made to grow them until they die. It is not acceptable for a public company to sit and just keep up with inflation, and employ it's people; that's their fundamental problem.
Actually...
that's because the leases ONLY included surface rights, and a bunch of lawyers are debating whether burying cable is a 'surface' thing or not.
I'm gonna bet that it is; surface rights was intended so they oculd use the land, but not have mineral rights, etc. So if gold is discovered beneath the track, the railway gets no benefit from it.
Actually, I believe the lawyers are not objecting to the cable being buried, but saying, that once it's there, it's a resource beneath these people's land that they shoudl be paying for, just as if it were buried gold.
1) If you are going to lay fiber, you're going to lay LOTS of fiber, not just a couple strands, even if you don't yet know how or when you are going to use the excess. The incremental cost of doing this is negligible.
2) You are not just going to sell that excess fiber off to other parties once you lay it, you'd rather keep it for yourself. Selling it off can set precedent, especially in the regulated telecom industry, and you may not be able to reclaim it in the future.
3) Internet bandwidth shortage? Come on. There is LOTS of bandwidth available; if bandwidth doubled, would profits double? No. Until lack of bandwidth starts hurting profits, there will not be more bandwidth... that's how things work in the real world.