CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.
That's a completely unproven assertion.
It has been conclusively proven throughout history, and continues to be proven in various places in Africa today. Think Somalia.
But aren't all of those armies that identify with the powers that sent them? What happens when little Joey is told to go shot his hometown friends who are mad enough to stand at the town limit to defend it with their hunting rifles?
The real answer is that you're not the customer. You're the product.
If there were not commercials, your question would be answerable. The fact that you're subscription cost makes only a small part of the channel's revenue, means that they're getting the money from elsewhere. If the channel can only show 1/10th the subscribers the ad rates will fall.
When things are working, but don't make sense, check your premises.
But would they pay for themselves if they weren't in your face, trapping you as you flip through the channels? That is, if people could cut off the flow of temptations?
In its original form it was pretty much just a grain (corn, in fact, is a generic term for grain that's been part of the English language before any English speaker laid eyes on maize).
I've been listening to Adams Smith's "Wealth of Nations" on audiobook. I was seriously confused until I finally realized this about his references to corn.
The people I generally knew were certainly not representative of most American's but they probably were representative of most Tea Party types (they were generally staunch republicans who still liked Bush at the end of his term)
You should realize that the TEA Party was a reaction to Bush's politics and out of control spending. The rest of your post is equally well informed, which is well indicated by drawing a conclusion about a population from playing an online wargame.
The state laws have to follow their own Constitutions, and generally abide by or at least not conflict with Federal laws. For instance, that whole thing about the Congress being forbidden to pass laws abridging religion or the free exercise thereof. That was mainly because each state had their own official religion, and the framers very judiciously removed themselves from creating a religious civil war. A federal law saying you had to be Anglican to be in Congress would be unconstitutional. A Virginia law saying a Catholic could not sit in the Virginia legislature was not (unless the Virginia constitution has some provision, which I have no desire to research).
You haven't got a clue, and have obviously never run a business.
You will keep the workers around your companies core competency, and contract out everything else. You'll bring in a cleaning company and fire the janitor. You'll hire an accounting firm, fire the girl that was keeping the books in the back room. You'll hire a local mover to do your shipping. You'll "sell" off part of the company, creating an engineering company and a manufacturing company.
And it is not the cost of PPACA itself. It is the cost of compliance. I know you bureau-philes don't like to admit it, but proving compliance with the deluge of regulations spit out by Federal Agencies every year is ridiculously expensive.
And legal is where such a discussion belongs, because it will be the lawyers defending the company against ridiculous "offenses".
True story. I was working on a contract basis for Cisco in RTP. They had a new corporate "rah, rah" campaign about something or another. But they put big screen TVs in all the hallways to "communicate the corporate message". One of the typical, slide-deck, person-dressed-in-blue-and-white pictures was of a nice looking young girl lying on her back reading a book. One fat ugly woman complained to HR that it was offensive, because "who reads a book like that." I was right around the corner when the hag saw the image and rang out with her hideous shrill voice. I remember it so well, because I was like "Huh? I do", and then all the TVs got turned off.
Thank your duly elected Democrats for pushing their divisive group warfare for making it so that any one can sue a company for big money for any claim of being offended about anything. The companies literally can't win, and create draconian rules to show the judge that they created such draconian rules that they could do little more.
What does the law have to say about doing his in person? That is, if I get in your face at a restaurant and start screaming obscenities like I just came from an OWS rally, are the police not correct in hauling me off in cuffs?
One side has peer reviewed research that has been manipulated and extrapolated beyond the bounds of reason by rent and power seeking politicians like Al Gore, and a strong consensus on a subset of the global warming argument, and which in any case carries all the weight of the sum total of jack and squat. "We are the smart ones and you need to do what we say, because we say so," does not garner you support. Never has and never will.
Why is this news? Someone wants to directly copy material from a large corporation's profitable franchise, and the franchise says no. I think a big "Duh?" is in order.
If orignal author of the episode most likely wrote it under contract with CBS, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the piece was not his to be enthusiastic about once he accepted money for it. If he did not do it under contract, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the franchise was not his to be enthusiastic about. CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.
Wouldn't he consider that people won't vote for him twice if he doesn't make good on the things that he said?
Umm? Have you considered the completely assinine statements politicians make, and yet people still vote for them? From what I've seen, most are running on the platform of "Yeah! So what? I'm not as bad as the other guy!"
I think the commercial, like those looking for people harmed by a drug or asbestos, would be hilarious.
Have you had the snot beat out of your for filming an arrest? Have you been arrested for having a cell phone. Call the law office of Wescrew and Good for a free consultation. We'll smack them bitches down, for ya'!!
No it didn't take 5 years to decide. It took five years for all the legal maneuvering, postponments and delay tactics to play out. To the claim that it was a gray area of the law, the judges decision basically said "Are you fuckin' kiddin' me?" in a very nice way.
Slashdot Mirror
CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.
That's a completely unproven assertion.
It has been conclusively proven throughout history, and continues to be proven in various places in Africa today. Think Somalia.
Damn, that was well said.
Thank you.
But aren't all of those armies that identify with the powers that sent them? What happens when little Joey is told to go shot his hometown friends who are mad enough to stand at the town limit to defend it with their hunting rifles?
Ever poured alcohol or hydrogen peroxide on an open wound?
DAMN!!! that hurts.
This could allow for the disinfection of an open wound without sending the patient into shock.
The real answer is that you're not the customer. You're the product.
If there were not commercials, your question would be answerable. The fact that you're subscription cost makes only a small part of the channel's revenue, means that they're getting the money from elsewhere. If the channel can only show 1/10th the subscribers the ad rates will fall.
When things are working, but don't make sense, check your premises.
But would they pay for themselves if they weren't in your face, trapping you as you flip through the channels? That is, if people could cut off the flow of temptations?
In its original form it was pretty much just a grain (corn, in fact, is a generic term for grain that's been part of the English language before any English speaker laid eyes on maize).
I've been listening to Adams Smith's "Wealth of Nations" on audiobook. I was seriously confused until I finally realized this about his references to corn.
If he were to be arrested and proclaimed and enemy of the State, how would you know?
The people I generally knew were certainly not representative of most American's but they probably were representative of most Tea Party types (they were generally staunch republicans who still liked Bush at the end of his term)
You should realize that the TEA Party was a reaction to Bush's politics and out of control spending. The rest of your post is equally well informed, which is well indicated by drawing a conclusion about a population from playing an online wargame.
Because I don't own the rent producing technologies, I have to invent new ones so that I can do some seeking of my own.
The state laws have to follow their own Constitutions, and generally abide by or at least not conflict with Federal laws. For instance, that whole thing about the Congress being forbidden to pass laws abridging religion or the free exercise thereof. That was mainly because each state had their own official religion, and the framers very judiciously removed themselves from creating a religious civil war. A federal law saying you had to be Anglican to be in Congress would be unconstitutional. A Virginia law saying a Catholic could not sit in the Virginia legislature was not (unless the Virginia constitution has some provision, which I have no desire to research).
You haven't got a clue, and have obviously never run a business.
You will keep the workers around your companies core competency, and contract out everything else. You'll bring in a cleaning company and fire the janitor. You'll hire an accounting firm, fire the girl that was keeping the books in the back room. You'll hire a local mover to do your shipping. You'll "sell" off part of the company, creating an engineering company and a manufacturing company.
And it is not the cost of PPACA itself. It is the cost of compliance. I know you bureau-philes don't like to admit it, but proving compliance with the deluge of regulations spit out by Federal Agencies every year is ridiculously expensive.
And legal is where such a discussion belongs, because it will be the lawyers defending the company against ridiculous "offenses".
True story. I was working on a contract basis for Cisco in RTP. They had a new corporate "rah, rah" campaign about something or another. But they put big screen TVs in all the hallways to "communicate the corporate message". One of the typical, slide-deck, person-dressed-in-blue-and-white pictures was of a nice looking young girl lying on her back reading a book. One fat ugly woman complained to HR that it was offensive, because "who reads a book like that." I was right around the corner when the hag saw the image and rang out with her hideous shrill voice. I remember it so well, because I was like "Huh? I do", and then all the TVs got turned off.
Thank your duly elected Democrats for pushing their divisive group warfare for making it so that any one can sue a company for big money for any claim of being offended about anything. The companies literally can't win, and create draconian rules to show the judge that they created such draconian rules that they could do little more.
What does the law have to say about doing his in person? That is, if I get in your face at a restaurant and start screaming obscenities like I just came from an OWS rally, are the police not correct in hauling me off in cuffs?
Please research some of the doctors that do not accept insurance.
A couple articles from google:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/07/doctors-who-don.html
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/02/primary-care-doctors-practice-insurance-free-medicine.html
Nancy, you've done had your chance.
I don't have one. I quit bothering when he started asking me questions and looking for my symptoms on WebMD....in front of me.
One side has peer reviewed research that has been manipulated and extrapolated beyond the bounds of reason by rent and power seeking politicians like Al Gore, and a strong consensus on a subset of the global warming argument, and which in any case carries all the weight of the sum total of jack and squat. "We are the smart ones and you need to do what we say, because we say so," does not garner you support. Never has and never will.
More arable land results in a "resource war"? And global warmers wonder why we laugh at them.
Fixed that for you.
With controvertible proof? You don't own a dictionary. Do you?
Mods, please increase the parent with +1 Funny. It's hilarious.
Why is this news? Someone wants to directly copy material from a large corporation's profitable franchise, and the franchise says no. I think a big "Duh?" is in order.
If orignal author of the episode most likely wrote it under contract with CBS, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the piece was not his to be enthusiastic about once he accepted money for it. If he did not do it under contract, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the franchise was not his to be enthusiastic about. CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.
Are these tornadoes made worse by AGM?
Wouldn't he consider that people won't vote for him twice if he doesn't make good on the things that he said?
Umm? Have you considered the completely assinine statements politicians make, and yet people still vote for them? From what I've seen, most are running on the platform of "Yeah! So what? I'm not as bad as the other guy!"
I think the commercial, like those looking for people harmed by a drug or asbestos, would be hilarious.
Have you had the snot beat out of your for filming an arrest?
Have you been arrested for having a cell phone.
Call the law office of Wescrew and Good for a free consultation.
We'll smack them bitches down, for ya'!!
No it didn't take 5 years to decide. It took five years for all the legal maneuvering, postponments and delay tactics to play out. To the claim that it was a gray area of the law, the judges decision basically said "Are you fuckin' kiddin' me?" in a very nice way.