But the point is, that was an Act of Parliament. It can be repealed by another Act of Parliament. Likewise, the Second Amendment is part of the constitution. It can be repealed by another amendment.
The British people have been given the laws that they want. There has been quite a large majority against free gun ownership for quite some time. Should the will of the people be swept away because of some perception that they don't know what's best for them?
Many industry segments managed to sort this out some time ago. Cross licensing means that companies can use each others patents for a reasonable fee. Any microchip will have technology developed by dozens of companies. It's not perfect - companies are still suing each other left and right, but generally they try to get compensation rather than block their opponents.
Interesting stuff, but really not worth it. Those who have their guns will insist that other statisitcs will show guns increase safety. It's most probably true that even if we did have the same gun ownership rate as the US our stats would be totally different. And of course, some areas with very high per-capita ownership in the US often have very low crime rates.
Now the main reason US citizens should be allowed firearms is that their constitution says so. If the population decides this is a bad thing they should repeal the second amendment. The main reason they should be restricted in Britain is that most of the population prefers it that way.
Perhaps, but suggesting that's anywhere near Alpha standard is exaggerating*. They released an early mock-up version as a game. Gamespot's video review shows that about the only thing that works is object/ground collision and graphics rendering.
*Okay, the GP probably just underestimates the quality of Alpha. Generally Alpha standard implies that we have a fully working playable game with fairly noticable defects but no showstoppers.
So, can I ask my credit card companies if I could delay and ultimately forgive my debt (without bankruptcy)?
I once felt this way. Now I'm not so sure... A lot of people take out loans that there's no way they can practically afford. Now, I totally agree that they're stupid to do this, but I can't help thinking that punishing them for years isn't really fair to someone who made a mistake. The loan companies took advantage of their stupidity. I find it a little difficult to take the side of an organisation that takes advantage of people.
If more personal debt was forgiven, then the loan companies would behave more responsibly. They wouldn't suffer that much. They'd just stop lending to high risk customers.
Which school board? The one 15 years ago that approved the equipment and then let it get stolen, or the one now that's stuck with the bill?
Except the school board isn't stuck with the bill. At least in that the individuals on the board don't have to pay it. It isn't going to affect their salary or anything in any way. The money will have to come from them cutting back on other educational expenses. So the people who are going to suffer are the kids who weren't even born when the deal was made.
Big Blue can afford it. Nobody seems to dispute this.
The school will have difficulty paying the money back. The owed money may end up being written off anyway.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. There's a lot of pressure being applied but it's up to IBM, and IBM can benefit from this. They'll get some of the money back as a tax break, more as good PR, and this will mean more money for the school to spend education, which will benefit IBM in the long run. That, and the person who makes the decision will have a feeling of being a nice person.
Ultimately it will be better for everyone if IBM forgives the debt.
actually threats like this are very effective because most managment get frightened by this kind of thing through a lack of understanding and are likely to just cut you loose rather then think it through.
But you can't just sack someone for expressing an opinion in Britain. But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression.
But surely the lawyer would have cost more than $7500, and if US Small Claims is anything like the English Small Claims track, he wouldn't have been able to claim this cost from the plaintiff.
Well, I happen to like those garbage channels. Not enough to actually pay extra for them, but enough that without them I wouldn't bother with cable if they weren't part of the standard package.
My local pizza delivery place has a deal where if i order two pizzas, I get a free Coke and tub of ice cream. I don't want the Coke, so am I being forced to pay for a drink I don't want? I have the option of buying the two pizzas separately and paying exta for the ice cream.
How about if I only want the foreign news, sport and TV sections of the newspaper? Why do I have to pay for all the other sections?
Here's the way bundling works: Person A sees Channel X as being worth $5 and channel Y as being worth $10. Person B sees channel X as being worth $14, and Channel Y as being worth $1. Person C sees channel X as being worth $10 and channel Y as being worth $5. Charge $5 for each, and Person B is disappointed that he's not getting Channel Y and the networks makes less money. Charge $1 for chennel Y and it's no longer financially viable. Charge $10 for each, and the network makes less money and the customers get less. Charge $15 for the bundle and everyone's happy. They all get the two channels at a price they think is fair and the network makes more money. Seems to me everyone wins with bundling.
Yeah. I'm not surprised. Toilet seats are usually made from non-porous materials, and are often cleaned with bleach, which means there's not a lot for the bacteria to feed on.
Surely pulling hteir ads is going to cost them something, otherwise why don't they just pull their ads and save money?
I imagine a lot of people haven't linked eBay with buying absolutely everything. It might not be the first place they think of when searching for an XBox, for example.
They don't advertise on Google to do Google a favour. They advertise on Google to draw traffic to eBay. If they pull their advertising, they hurt themselves. Not as much as they hurt Google, because they can easily spend the advertising budget elsewhere, but still a case of cutting of their nose to spite their faces.
The pound is used as a unit of mass as well as a unit of force. One (mass)pound weighs one (force) pound at 1g. This can lead to some oddities. For example, specific impulse(e.g. of rocket fuel) is measured in Force produce per mass used per second. In metric, the units are N.s/kg. In Imperial (or English if you prefer) they're lb.s/lb. This gives a result in seconds.
Most countries in Europe have their own system of classification for films, usually based on an age classification, and backed by law. In Britain we apply these to games as well. It should be up to the individual nation what they do and don;t allow. Not the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean all a dollar is is a promise of payment from the US teasury - essentially a big bank. Do all your dealing in precious metals.
Not very good but they are reasonably effective at preventing abuse of them.
But the point is, that was an Act of Parliament. It can be repealed by another Act of Parliament. Likewise, the Second Amendment is part of the constitution. It can be repealed by another amendment.
The British people have been given the laws that they want. There has been quite a large majority against free gun ownership for quite some time. Should the will of the people be swept away because of some perception that they don't know what's best for them?
Many industry segments managed to sort this out some time ago. Cross licensing means that companies can use each others patents for a reasonable fee. Any microchip will have technology developed by dozens of companies. It's not perfect - companies are still suing each other left and right, but generally they try to get compensation rather than block their opponents.
Interesting stuff, but really not worth it. Those who have their guns will insist that other statisitcs will show guns increase safety. It's most probably true that even if we did have the same gun ownership rate as the US our stats would be totally different. And of course, some areas with very high per-capita ownership in the US often have very low crime rates.
Now the main reason US citizens should be allowed firearms is that their constitution says so. If the population decides this is a bad thing they should repeal the second amendment. The main reason they should be restricted in Britain is that most of the population prefers it that way.
Yeah! Slap that on the front of the box. There's no way anyone would suggest that it's being marketted to children.
Actually lots of people will suggest that it is. It's a shame that the totally obvious doesn't get any screen time in the news.
Perhaps, but suggesting that's anywhere near Alpha standard is exaggerating*. They released an early mock-up version as a game. Gamespot's video review shows that about the only thing that works is object/ground collision and graphics rendering.
*Okay, the GP probably just underestimates the quality of Alpha. Generally Alpha standard implies that we have a fully working playable game with fairly noticable defects but no showstoppers.
Ultimately it will be better for everyone if Visa forgives the debt.
Yup. I've come to the same conclusion. Hell, who forced Visa to lend them the money in the first place?
So, can I ask my credit card companies if I could delay and ultimately forgive my debt (without bankruptcy)?
I once felt this way. Now I'm not so sure... A lot of people take out loans that there's no way they can practically afford. Now, I totally agree that they're stupid to do this, but I can't help thinking that punishing them for years isn't really fair to someone who made a mistake. The loan companies took advantage of their stupidity. I find it a little difficult to take the side of an organisation that takes advantage of people.
If more personal debt was forgiven, then the loan companies would behave more responsibly. They wouldn't suffer that much. They'd just stop lending to high risk customers.
Which school board? The one 15 years ago that approved the equipment and then let it get stolen, or the one now that's stuck with the bill?
Except the school board isn't stuck with the bill. At least in that the individuals on the board don't have to pay it. It isn't going to affect their salary or anything in any way. The money will have to come from them cutting back on other educational expenses. So the people who are going to suffer are the kids who weren't even born when the deal was made.
Big Blue can afford it. Nobody seems to dispute this.
The school will have difficulty paying the money back. The owed money may end up being written off anyway.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. There's a lot of pressure being applied but it's up to IBM, and IBM can benefit from this. They'll get some of the money back as a tax break, more as good PR, and this will mean more money for the school to spend education, which will benefit IBM in the long run. That, and the person who makes the decision will have a feeling of being a nice person.
Ultimately it will be better for everyone if IBM forgives the debt.
Probably. Sony are perfectly entitled to outbid them, and it's not like Microsoft can use any unrelated business to push them out of the deal.
actually threats like this are very effective because most managment get frightened by this kind of thing through a lack of understanding and are likely to just cut you loose rather then think it through.
But you can't just sack someone for expressing an opinion in Britain. But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression.
Court? Case? suing? Who's suing who here?
"Take your link down or I'll make an ineffectual complaint to your employer"
Have we run out of RIAA slimeball tricks? This is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Yes. That was 1989. Obviously they found it inadequate for its needs, and the closed it down.
Yeah, it's quite likely that Cuba isn't the communist paradise that they claim, but anecdotal evidence isn't proof.
But surely the lawyer would have cost more than $7500, and if US Small Claims is anything like the English Small Claims track, he wouldn't have been able to claim this cost from the plaintiff.
Well, I happen to like those garbage channels. Not enough to actually pay extra for them, but enough that without them I wouldn't bother with cable if they weren't part of the standard package.
My local pizza delivery place has a deal where if i order two pizzas, I get a free Coke and tub of ice cream. I don't want the Coke, so am I being forced to pay for a drink I don't want? I have the option of buying the two pizzas separately and paying exta for the ice cream.
How about if I only want the foreign news, sport and TV sections of the newspaper? Why do I have to pay for all the other sections?
Here's the way bundling works: Person A sees Channel X as being worth $5 and channel Y as being worth $10. Person B sees channel X as being worth $14, and Channel Y as being worth $1. Person C sees channel X as being worth $10 and channel Y as being worth $5. Charge $5 for each, and Person B is disappointed that he's not getting Channel Y and the networks makes less money. Charge $1 for chennel Y and it's no longer financially viable. Charge $10 for each, and the network makes less money and the customers get less. Charge $15 for the bundle and everyone's happy. They all get the two channels at a price they think is fair and the network makes more money. Seems to me everyone wins with bundling.
Yeah. I'm not surprised. Toilet seats are usually made from non-porous materials, and are often cleaned with bleach, which means there's not a lot for the bacteria to feed on.
Surely pulling hteir ads is going to cost them something, otherwise why don't they just pull their ads and save money?
I imagine a lot of people haven't linked eBay with buying absolutely everything. It might not be the first place they think of when searching for an XBox, for example.
They don't advertise on Google to do Google a favour. They advertise on Google to draw traffic to eBay. If they pull their advertising, they hurt themselves. Not as much as they hurt Google, because they can easily spend the advertising budget elsewhere, but still a case of cutting of their nose to spite their faces.
The pound is used as a unit of mass as well as a unit of force. One (mass)pound weighs one (force) pound at 1g. This can lead to some oddities. For example, specific impulse(e.g. of rocket fuel) is measured in Force produce per mass used per second. In metric, the units are N.s/kg. In Imperial (or English if you prefer) they're lb.s/lb. This gives a result in seconds.
Do they WANT to piss everyone off?
Yes. I think this is their entire business strategy.
Most countries in Europe have their own system of classification for films, usually based on an age classification, and backed by law. In Britain we apply these to games as well. It should be up to the individual nation what they do and don;t allow. Not the EU.