I actually owned a pawnshop for years, until we sold it in 04. I can say you are mistaken on the prices.
CDs 50 cents to $1 MAX DVDs 50 cents to $2 MAX
Most we wouldn't even take, and if someone came in with a whole collection, they were lucky to get 25 cents each of either. Many pawnshops are no longer taking them because it is too easy to end up with deal inventory from one hit wonders (or no hit wonders). We were next to a large college, and still had problems selling CDs, when you could download for free.
When it comes to being cash dense, nothing beats diamonds, gold and platinum, ounce per ounce. Literally. CDs and DVDs are a waste of time.
Garth Brooks was pushing royalties for used CD sales way back when I had a shop that sold used CDs. This is right before he quit doing shit, so I guess he was just wanting some extra royalties on his old stuff. I thought it was a money grab then, and it is now.
Since I have always only bought used CDs, I guess now I will need to start downloading and burning all my music instead. No way I'm paying $20 for 2 good songs, and I don't want an ipod.
I was gonna say "Jerry Springer" but I guess that works, too.
Remember: No matter what is wrong in your life, and no matter whose fault it is, there is likely someone who you can sue and at least cash out a bit on the problem.
I don't remember saying I pirated anything. I refer to *real* pirates as people who are conterfeiting DVDs and actually are costing the industry money, rather than people looking to download CAMs. The one's who are passing their DVDs as the real thing for profit are not the same as some 15 year old wanting to watch a movie the day it hits theatres.
I thought the *real* pirates where the guys who were doing bit for bit copies of the disks, encryption and all, so they could sell them? Cracks mean nothing in that context.
They raked 2600.com over the coals for simply LINKING to the code, even tho the NYTimes did the same thing. It was because the Times isn't a "hacker" site and 2600 is. Total BS on selective enforcement.
Nothing I said in any post referred to nor advocated using tanning beds. Everyone just is blinded by that fact that I refer to them in my sig.
And educate is the proper word. Since you have no idea who I am, or what I really stand for excepting a couple of paragraphs that you didn't read in full, I am confident you don't know enough to judge me on this.
Like most of the others, you see "tanning bed" and you make assumptions about what I stand for and believe. And like them, you would be wrong.
If you want to get rid of extracorricular sports, ok, but P.E. isn't the same thing. Again, there is plenty to learn in P.E., such as everyone deserves a chance to try, as opposed to extracorricular Football, where you must prove yourself to be "good enough".
Teamwork isn't a bad thing, and P.E. is also good for blowing stress and frustration for kids. There wasn't real competition anyway, as each day you were on a different team, unlike organized sports.
as we are talking about P.E., which although an integral part of schools isn't really about "learning", per se.
P.E. stands for Physical Education. Of course the idea is learning. Many schools teach Sex Ed in PE as well. I learned how to play several sports and how important exercise is. In my old age (over 40) I still play many of the games I first learned in P.E.
I'm a bit old for dodgeball and fieldhockey, but I know how. Basketball, flag football, kickball, wrestling, etc. were all learned in P.E. I also took a bicycling/golf/bowling class one year for P.E. in high school, and learned quite a bit. More importantly, I learned to work with others as a team. All in P.E.
(We didn't learn about Teamwork in "English Literature", "Geometry" or "Typing Class". Perhaps your school was different.)
So yea, where I went to school, they made P.E. fun and the leasons are still with me.
Ever hear of a song called "The Wall"? There is NO reason school can't be enjoyable. Learning *IS* supposed to be enjoyable, which is what makes it happen.
You make it suck, kids don't pay attention, they don't learn, and all you have is a damn state sponsored day care center. No thanks, I think finding creative ways to have kids enjoy learning and exercising is a better alternative.
What is wrong is that not every kid finds it entertaining, and PE is about exercise, preferably the kind that will stick with a kid for life. For some, it is sports. For others, it will be dancing. Personally, I would pick a game of dodgeball. The key is to be somewhat enjoyable so they will do it more than just "halfass".
SCOTUS interprets the laws. They don't make them. So I'd say no... IANAL
Oh really? Ever heard of Roe vs. Wade? Brown vs. Board of Education? Plus a whole string of cases that forces racial quotas in schools via busing, under court order.
Not making a statement as to the wisdom, but these were clearly cases where the court took a stand and created law.
I think you will find a deaf ear here when it comes to UV. I have spent years trying to educate people that UV exposure is nature and healthy if none without burning and in moderation.
The problem is that there is an industry in people getting ZERO UV, and this industry is easily 100x larger than the indoor tanning industry. The tanning bed industry is extremely small, with no public companies.
So billions are at stake, and no amount of science is going to change their minds. As soon as you talk about medical use, "moderate use", or anything reasonable, they will scream how there is "no safe level" and other garbage that simply isn't supported in the data.
Statistics can say anything you want them to say. Saying that any UV is deadly, after we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to it (and even NEED it to produce vitamin D), smacks of bad science.
Thank you for proving my point. Moderate exposure (where you have no chance of getting "red" in any way) is not the same as sunbathing without SPF, which is never a good idea.
And what is on my side is a wealth of data, including the actual incidence of skin cancer for the globe, relative to UV exposure, and over a decade of studying UV and cancer. What I DONT rely on is anonymous experts on Slashdot.
I get the full report for my state each year. Most of the problems are with bass, which I don't eat anyway. The lakes that have problems (in NC, those lakes east and just west of I95) I don't frequent.
Um, its not a hoax, and I haven't tried to hide the fact that I have worked in the industry for many years. And in those many years, I have had to put up with people who don't have the facts, when the facts are very simple:
Mild to moderate exposure is good for you. Overexposure, particularly when you are young, is very bad. Most states have laws preventing teens from using tanning beds and many of those were pushed BY THE INDUSTRY. I have written several articles on the same subject over the years.
No one is saying UV doesn't have risks, we are saying that getting NO UV is also bad for you, and this study simply demonstrates this fact. And oral vitamin D is not nearly as effective as what your own body produces.
Personally, I get all my UV from being outdoors, and yes, I use SPF most of the time. Again, too much isn't good either.
And the highest incidence of skin cancer is in areas where people get the least amount of UV exposure, such as northern Europe. The key is moderation.
Also, most skin cancer that is UV related is linked directly with OVEREXPSURE, several times, mainly when young. Again, UV in mild to moderate doses is less dangerous than getting NO UV.
Or just get regular UV exposure and your body will autoregulate itself and you will get exactly what you need: no more, no less. Kinda what nature intended.
As far as I know, no one has died or gotten sick from an overdose of vitamin D that was generated from UV exposure.
So we should get fatter and stay in the sun longer?
Actually, people who are in the sun a lot tend to be less fat, its a lifestyle thing. That is part of how the wife and I are trying to get and keep more fit in our 40s. More fishing, more outdoor activities (which means more exercise) = more vitamin D, more endorphines (from sunlight exposure) and better toned.
Fish more often (and eat the fish, high in omega 3) and you will live longer;)
You laugh (and I did too) but moderate tanning (read: no burning) is the best way to get vitamin D. Your body makes its own, and the best kind that is the easiest for the body to use. Been saying it for years, but the skin nazis have been preaching (incorrectly) that moderate sun will cause cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually owned a pawnshop for years, until we sold it in 04. I can say you are mistaken on the prices.
CDs 50 cents to $1 MAX
DVDs 50 cents to $2 MAX
Most we wouldn't even take, and if someone came in with a whole collection, they were lucky to get 25 cents each of either. Many pawnshops are no longer taking them because it is too easy to end up with deal inventory from one hit wonders (or no hit wonders). We were next to a large college, and still had problems selling CDs, when you could download for free.
When it comes to being cash dense, nothing beats diamonds, gold and platinum, ounce per ounce. Literally. CDs and DVDs are a waste of time.
Garth Brooks was pushing royalties for used CD sales way back when I had a shop that sold used CDs. This is right before he quit doing shit, so I guess he was just wanting some extra royalties on his old stuff. I thought it was a money grab then, and it is now.
Since I have always only bought used CDs, I guess now I will need to start downloading and burning all my music instead. No way I'm paying $20 for 2 good songs, and I don't want an ipod.
In short, "save it for Livejournal".
I was gonna say "Jerry Springer" but I guess that works, too.
Remember: No matter what is wrong in your life, and no matter whose fault it is, there is likely someone who you can sue and at least cash out a bit on the problem.
Due to everyone playing WoW, there will be no first post for this article.
I don't remember saying I pirated anything. I refer to *real* pirates as people who are conterfeiting DVDs and actually are costing the industry money, rather than people looking to download CAMs. The one's who are passing their DVDs as the real thing for profit are not the same as some 15 year old wanting to watch a movie the day it hits theatres.
Oh, I thought "Free patents online" was just another RMS cause.
I thought the *real* pirates where the guys who were doing bit for bit copies of the disks, encryption and all, so they could sell them? Cracks mean nothing in that context.
Oh, here's your problem: Your encryption has a big crack in it...
Well, Anthony's comment has already been removed, along with the "page missing page".
They raked 2600.com over the coals for simply LINKING to the code, even tho the NYTimes did the same thing. It was because the Times isn't a "hacker" site and 2600 is. Total BS on selective enforcement.
Nothing I said in any post referred to nor advocated using tanning beds. Everyone just is blinded by that fact that I refer to them in my sig.
And educate is the proper word. Since you have no idea who I am, or what I really stand for excepting a couple of paragraphs that you didn't read in full, I am confident you don't know enough to judge me on this.
Like most of the others, you see "tanning bed" and you make assumptions about what I stand for and believe. And like them, you would be wrong.
If you want to get rid of extracorricular sports, ok, but P.E. isn't the same thing. Again, there is plenty to learn in P.E., such as everyone deserves a chance to try, as opposed to extracorricular Football, where you must prove yourself to be "good enough".
Teamwork isn't a bad thing, and P.E. is also good for blowing stress and frustration for kids. There wasn't real competition anyway, as each day you were on a different team, unlike organized sports.
as we are talking about P.E., which although an integral part of schools isn't really about "learning", per se.
P.E. stands for Physical Education. Of course the idea is learning. Many schools teach Sex Ed in PE as well. I learned how to play several sports and how important exercise is. In my old age (over 40) I still play many of the games I first learned in P.E.
I'm a bit old for dodgeball and fieldhockey, but I know how. Basketball, flag football, kickball, wrestling, etc. were all learned in P.E. I also took a bicycling/golf/bowling class one year for P.E. in high school, and learned quite a bit. More importantly, I learned to work with others as a team. All in P.E.
(We didn't learn about Teamwork in "English Literature", "Geometry" or "Typing Class". Perhaps your school was different.)
So yea, where I went to school, they made P.E. fun and the leasons are still with me.
The point of schools is not to be enjoyable
Ever hear of a song called "The Wall"? There is NO reason school can't be enjoyable. Learning *IS* supposed to be enjoyable, which is what makes it happen.
You make it suck, kids don't pay attention, they don't learn, and all you have is a damn state sponsored day care center. No thanks, I think finding creative ways to have kids enjoy learning and exercising is a better alternative.
What is wrong is that not every kid finds it entertaining, and PE is about exercise, preferably the kind that will stick with a kid for life. For some, it is sports. For others, it will be dancing. Personally, I would pick a game of dodgeball. The key is to be somewhat enjoyable so they will do it more than just "halfass".
Dancing already *IS* an olympic event.
DDR is just a workout tool, although I am not sure how it will prepare you for ballroom dancing. Stamina, perhaps.
SCOTUS interprets the laws. They don't make them. So I'd say no... IANAL
Oh really? Ever heard of Roe vs. Wade? Brown vs. Board of Education? Plus a whole string of cases that forces racial quotas in schools via busing, under court order.
Not making a statement as to the wisdom, but these were clearly cases where the court took a stand and created law.
I think you will find a deaf ear here when it comes to UV. I have spent years trying to educate people that UV exposure is nature and healthy if none without burning and in moderation.
The problem is that there is an industry in people getting ZERO UV, and this industry is easily 100x larger than the indoor tanning industry. The tanning bed industry is extremely small, with no public companies.
So billions are at stake, and no amount of science is going to change their minds. As soon as you talk about medical use, "moderate use", or anything reasonable, they will scream how there is "no safe level" and other garbage that simply isn't supported in the data.
Statistics can say anything you want them to say. Saying that any UV is deadly, after we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to it (and even NEED it to produce vitamin D), smacks of bad science.
Thank you for proving my point. Moderate exposure (where you have no chance of getting "red" in any way) is not the same as sunbathing without SPF, which is never a good idea.
And what is on my side is a wealth of data, including the actual incidence of skin cancer for the globe, relative to UV exposure, and over a decade of studying UV and cancer. What I DONT rely on is anonymous experts on Slashdot.
I get the full report for my state each year. Most of the problems are with bass, which I don't eat anyway. The lakes that have problems (in NC, those lakes east and just west of I95) I don't frequent.
Um, its not a hoax, and I haven't tried to hide the fact that I have worked in the industry for many years. And in those many years, I have had to put up with people who don't have the facts, when the facts are very simple:
Mild to moderate exposure is good for you. Overexposure, particularly when you are young, is very bad. Most states have laws preventing teens from using tanning beds and many of those were pushed BY THE INDUSTRY. I have written several articles on the same subject over the years.
No one is saying UV doesn't have risks, we are saying that getting NO UV is also bad for you, and this study simply demonstrates this fact. And oral vitamin D is not nearly as effective as what your own body produces.
Personally, I get all my UV from being outdoors, and yes, I use SPF most of the time. Again, too much isn't good either.
And the highest incidence of skin cancer is in areas where people get the least amount of UV exposure, such as northern Europe. The key is moderation.
Also, most skin cancer that is UV related is linked directly with OVEREXPSURE, several times, mainly when young. Again, UV in mild to moderate doses is less dangerous than getting NO UV.
Or just get regular UV exposure and your body will autoregulate itself and you will get exactly what you need: no more, no less. Kinda what nature intended.
As far as I know, no one has died or gotten sick from an overdose of vitamin D that was generated from UV exposure.
So we should get fatter and stay in the sun longer?
;)
Actually, people who are in the sun a lot tend to be less fat, its a lifestyle thing. That is part of how the wife and I are trying to get and keep more fit in our 40s. More fishing, more outdoor activities (which means more exercise) = more vitamin D, more endorphines (from sunlight exposure) and better toned.
Fish more often (and eat the fish, high in omega 3) and you will live longer
You laugh (and I did too) but moderate tanning (read: no burning) is the best way to get vitamin D. Your body makes its own, and the best kind that is the easiest for the body to use. Been saying it for years, but the skin nazis have been preaching (incorrectly) that moderate sun will cause cancer.