I'd be modestly surprised if they were to do it for free(whoever they buy the map data from would want money for an offline offering, and Google's ability to wring adsense out of offline users would be pretty limited); but I don't see any particular strategic or philosophical reason why google wouldn't, at some point, kick out an offline offering as a paid thing.
I can think of a good reason to keep it free - the huge dataset you build from users. Think about it. Google gets
Free testing and trouble reporting on the ap and data
Usage data that can be packaged and sold - popular routes, searches for things along the route,etc.
User familiarity with an ap that can also be packaged for commercial use and sale; especially since a phone allows two way data communication and messaging at a relatively low cost. They could also roll out notebook/netbook/tablet versions as well.
Just some random thoughts; but I do believe the data Google can collect and package; as well as selling custom versions to business is where the money is, not the average phone user. The average phone user, however, is valuable for building the dataset and free will get a lot of users. In the US at least, Google has their own map data so using it on and offline should not be a license issue>
You can NEVER waive or lose your inalienable rights. They are inalienable.
The fact that the government does strip them away is ridiculous. The fact that the government allows it to happen between private parties is equally ridiculous.
The government is charged with protecting the rights of the people. I don't know who convinced you that the Constitution is just boundaries for the government (to ignore) - the Constitution is documentation of what the government is and what it must and must not do.
It sickens me that people can read the Constitution and not comprehend the simple language it contains.
"For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights."
Yes it does.
Yes it does.
The fact that the courts have interpreted it incorrectly does not change what is factually correct or what is written.
Inalienable rights are inalienable.
No one can rightfully prevent me from going anywhere I want in this country with any weapon I want, nor can they prevent me from going to your house and calling you a fucking moron.
I am, of course, responsible for any demonstrable, direct consequences of my actions. If I'm violating a noise ordinance or public nuisance law, if I'm trespassing, etc., I expect to be punished.
If I carry an assault rifle and shoot up a mall of people, and somehow live out my 5 life sentences, no one can prevent me from carrying an assault rifle to a mall when I get out of prison.
If that scares you, this is the wrong country for you. Or it at least it's supposed to be.
You have a very bizarre and incorrect view of the Constitution - it explicit states the powers and limitations placed on the government; not the people.
You might view it as creating a super nanny state that forces individuals to act in a certain way; but that view is clearly incorrect. I prefer the state not to take away my freedoms by trying to enforce restrictions place on it on me and my property.
In the end, its my property, my decision - you have no right to do anything on or with my property without my consent; and I don't want the government telling me otherwise. Yo have no rights to free speech or to carry a gun or assemble or practice your religion on my property. Nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.
No.
Contracts require signatures and are not implicit upon purchase of goods and services.
Seems to me I don't have to provide any signature to purchase airline tickets.
A contract does not require a signature - only offer, acceptance and consideration; which a purchase of an airline ticket satisfies.
There is no excusing this bullshit, and no amount of legal rhetoric can change the fundamental fact that INALIENABLE RIGHTS are being violated. These rights are supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE to waive - they are inalienable, and it is the government's DUTY to PROTECT them.
You seem to think somehow the US Constitution limits what individuals, not the government, can do. You are simply wrong. Individuals enter into contracts everyday that place limits on their actions that restrict them from exercising their rights. The key aspects are they are doing so voluntarily and that it is individuals, not the government, that are so doing.
For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights.
Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.
No I haven't.
When you buy a ticket you have. The contract of carriage (you know, that multi-page document that forms a contract between you and the airline) will have some words to the following effect:
Passengers and their baggage are subject to surveillance and inspection by electronic and/or physical means with or without the passenger’s consent or knowledge.
So once you buy a ticket you've agreed to be searched; they don't even have to ask you again when they do it. You only choice is to not buy the ticket if you don't want to be searched. If you refuse to be searched then the can deny you boarding, as detailed in the section on the carrier's right to refuse transport:
Search of Passenger or Property-Any passenger who refuses to permit the search of his or her person or property for explosives, hazardous materials, contraband, or concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapons or articles.
Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.
It is unreasonable because it costs the tax payer untold amounts of money, wastes untold amounts of time, is an invasion of privacy, and it is all completely ineffectual.
None of which, independent of your agreeing to be searched , makes the security procedure an constitutional violation of the "unreasonable search" provision.
Since the by-product is helium, a reactor leak would only mean that any nearby residents would talk like Mickey Mouse for a little while. Which is better than radiation sickness.
Until you get sued by Disney for trademark infringement...
The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If 99% of planes got hijacked and crashed, it would still be unconstitutional.
...against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The argument for them is that it is not an unreasonable search since you voluntarily agree to the search by accessing the secure area of the airport. You may not like that argument; but that does not mean the search was unreasonable.
The difference arises because if I 'buy' the CD, I can't use it as freely as the paint and furniture that I buy.
This is the fundamental flaw in a system where I have no choice _not_ to rent the CD. Since the CD inherently comes with legally enforceable strings attached even when I do buy it.
Because, as you point out, you are only buying the physical disk, not the music. You have a choice, however. Buying the music would cost a lot more than the cost of the CD; since you are not willing to pay that, you don't get the music. however, you are willing to pay the asking price for paint, fittings, etc, and so the owner sells the entire object to you.
Fortunately, there is some level of sanity in other industries when it comes to 'IP'.
How so? You can't produce copies of many objects; you can't use them in derivative works in some cases; you own the object only.
Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
Actually you're quite right, it's very similar:
When renting a building, imagine that the landlord was then obligated to seek out every manufacturer of fittings, paints, carpets, lino, furniture, etc. And pay them ongoing royalties. That's too hard.
So lets just let the landlord collect and keep that 'rent'! Much simpler to administer.
In general, the landlord has bought, not rented or otherwise arranged for use of the property. I do agree, however, that it is much more efficient to collect the money upstream in the process (such as the radio station) rather than further downstream.
The problem, as I see it, is that stations have much more power than individual radio owners. If stations are pushed to hard on radio, they can alter formats and play lists to minimize costs and / or demand reductions for playing new music; limiting a key marketing vehicle (and potential hit maker) for record producers.
I've been put in this situation before and there was nothing I could do except play the game and shove money down her pants. The stripper knows it and she exploits it. Next time I encounter an event like that, I'm telling my coworkers to have fun, I'll walk straight out and tell the organizer to fuck off.
Why can't you? I've been in that situation, as a designated driver, and had no problem not shoving money into a g-string. One thing about strippers - they are in it for the money. You are simply a conduit for moving it from your wallet to hers. Once they realize you are not going to shell out cash, they leave you alone. A simple "I'm here to drive my friends home safely and am not interested, thanks," gets them moving on to the next guy. Word quickly gets around and you get left alone.
As for my friends, if they give me hard time I simply tell them I'm a cheap SOB and will not waste money when there is nothing in it for me.
I'm shocked to discover, an emerging world power is spying on the existing world power and is trying to get its weapons technology...
Seriously, this shouldn't even be news. What countermeasures are being taken is a lot more interesting — for both us and the Chinese — but should be kept just as secret for the latter reason...
You hit it square on the head - countermeasures allow for not only stopping intrusions but feeding bogus information or incorporating features in software that may be useful in the future - trap doors, equipment malfunctions, etc.
>> Should the builders, paint manufacturers, etc. get 'royalties' because you use their products commercially?
>>
>> I don't think so.
> Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
No, it's not rent. The issue is not how you pay for the building (and not how you pay for the music), but the purpose for which it's used.
Ditto for the music. It is argued (also in the Netherlands), that commercial use of music adds value to the experience, or makes workers work better. This is a bogus argument as this is true for just about anything. A building is better than open-air, so if you convert your house to a shop (small shops are often houses in the Netherlands), then suddenly you are supposed to pay the builders, the brick manufacturers, the electriciens, etc. extra money each year because you use your house commercially.
Another example: A comfortable chair in an office. If you use it at home, no problem, use it in the office instead of crappy chairs, and bingo, you're supposed to pay the manufacturer, and anyone who helped make it. Absurd!
While I believe I understand your point I think you missed mine:
You have an opportunity, whenever you make a decision on how to acquire property (and I would classify a song as property that has vested property rights) - buy or rent.
What you chose depends on how you assign value and the cost of each option. You don't assign enough value to a song to buy it outright, so you rent it via a license fee. Many other objects, however, are simply cheaper to buy outright. Since you own the object you owe no one else any money regardless of the use.
> Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket
> to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they
> use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which
> makes it a tool of commerce.
Yes, and so is the building itself, the paint to make the walls look nice, and much more.
Should the builders, paint manufacturers, etc. get 'royalties' because you use their products commercially?
I don't think so.
Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
So "used as a tool of commerce" is just not a valid argument.
Just as with the building/paint/what's in the building, the radio has already been paid for. Via tax (as in NL) and/or the radio stations which pay to transmit. Everyone can freely listen to the radio privately, so why should anyone have to pay to use it in a store?
While I agree it should only be paid for once - whether it's via a tax (although I find the notion I should pay a tax / TV just to own one absurd) or the stations paying for performance rights; that unfortunately isn't the case.
So my follow-on question is, Why does everyone think it's OK for private companies answerable to no one (or the highest bidder) to be collecting this information in the first place? Well, yes, I suppose most people in this thread don't think so, but all of the normal people out there seem to be perfectly happy with the idea.
Because they don't view the Bill of Rights as sound and enlightened principles to be honored wherever possible that happened to be enshrined in the Constitution. They view them as rules like any other. Then they note that either the rules don't apply to those private companies or they would be difficult to enforce, and for them, that's that. It's a mentality that is all about what is allowed or what can be gotten away with, rather than what is right or wrong.
Probably because the Bill of Rights and the rest of the US Constitution define the powers given t the government as well as specific restrictions placed on it; not private citizens, corporations, or other non-governmental agencies. While I feel they are fundamental to our way of government; I would not want to be subject to the restrictions placed on the government; for example I value the ability to control who speaks using my property, and to control the possession of firearms on my property.
I do have a more immediate question. If an average citizen hires a person to do something illegal, both the person and the one he hired can be charged with a crime. If it's illegal for the CIA to gather data on American citizens, why is it suddenly legal when they do the same thing by proxy? Why wouldn't both they and the company they hired be prosecuted for this?
Because the CIA is not asking the companies to do anything illegal; any more than you would be if you hire an armed off duty police officer to provide security when local laws forbid you from carrying a concealed weapon. The CIA is not forbidden by law from buying publically avaialble information; nor from collecting open source intelligence.
...
If an employee drops their phone and needs to replace it ASAP, someone in the company can pull the SIM card, put it into a new phone, and the employee is back to work with minimal downtime - unless you're on a non-GSM carrier in which case you need to have the magic store deactivate the old phone, sell you a new phone, activate it, etc...
When I was on verizon, all it took to swap phones was to enter the new ID into my account online. I could switch phones anytime with no problems.
TI can EABOD. You shouldn't be able to use any program-able calculator on the ACT or SAT. There is a reason that the FE (fundamentals of engineering) exams allow only specific calculators. The TI-8x and 9X series are really shitty netbooks.
FE Exam calcs.
Hewlett Packard: The HP 33s and HP 35s models, but no others.
Isn't the 35s programmable? The specs seem to claim that it is:
Programmable with keystroke programming
Is the memory volatile so you can't save prorgams?
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
I do wish her well, though...
Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future, and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.
As for the red tape, knowing the law can be of very little use, especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply don't care what you think the law is; they've been doing it like this for years. Piss them off? Opps, your file is missing a key form. Please send it in again (so I can shred it). Threaten to sue? Go ahead, it'll be years before you get a verdict.
P>Not all are like that, but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system.
I think you're giving the man too much credit. You're reasoning is that because he knew a technology back in the 80s he should be aware of how technology works 20 years later and in a completely different medium.
He understands how to use a medium to make money, all it is is a different way to deliver content. in fact, he doesn't need to understand the technology, only how it can be used profitably.
It seems to me that this is more of a cause of him not understanding exactly how the internet works. Especially since he calls them "plagiarists" and "content kleptomaniacs*", which implies he thinks that they somehow are copying and keeping his content. Maybe he was just trying to be dramatic to get more attention, but I'm still pretty sure he's not exactly sure what it means when a search engine links to the page of a website without going through it. (This is guessing a lot, but I tend to think he believes that if he goes to paid content using a Google search will bring you to the content by going around the page that asks you to pay for it.)
He's a newspaper man. he knows how to arise passion and inflame people with words. That's his business, and he has been very successful at it. He knows exactly what he is doing, and how to fight. Don't count him out; even if you don't agree with anything he says it would be a mistake to think he can't get his message out successfully.
We spend more on healthcare to cover 25% of the people than countries with socialized medicine pay to cover 100%. We either need to go to 100% following one of their models (thus increasing services and reducing cost at the same time) or abandon all government interference in health care and cut that massive chunk out of the budget.
We could start by limiting the US healthcare consumer's subsidization of foreign healthcare costs - require any drug company doing business in the US to sell drugs at a best price level - i.e. what the drug is sold for in the EU or Canada.
Of course, that would drastically alter the pharma industry's business model; or raise prices outside of the US while dropping them in the US.
If the scores are all the same, then it really doesn't matter who gets in. An essay is a shitty way to select engineering students and doesn't gauge anything other than their ability to make up 500 words of bullshit.
That said, a first come, first served system would be appropriate when determine who gets accepted when scores are identical.
An essay is a good way to distinguish between a group with similar test scores and grades. Grades and test scores are merely an indicator of ability to do the academic work; table stakes if you will. An essay lets you learn a little something about the person, and how they think; not that they can think.
The author referred to the UofC's essays - an interesting set that lets the applicant show who they are; the UofC's questions also reflect the somewhat wacky nature of the school. I've read admission's essays; many are rehashes of the same sterile story line; a few engage you and make you think. The latter are the ones that get admitted. As a side note, a few tend to forget to do a find and replace of some other college's name - those go in the "Thanks for playing; we have no lovely parting gifts for you."
While there are a lot of choices out there (I like Canons and HP's personally) look at the cost of consumables (toner and the fuser drum) to help decide what to buy. Color is nice but the consumable costs are often higher than plain old B&W printers, and sometimes are hard to find as refills. Once you find some that have an affordable cost per page you can decide which best meets your needs. I don't use PS so while I like the old Brotehr H1440 I picked up on sale for around $50 a few years back it probably won't meet your needs. It had acceptable output so I bought it based on low initial price and low (at the time) price per page.
I was shopping for a new laptop for my wife a year or two ago and browsing Circuit City (no intentions of buying there, I just like to get my hands on the products before I buy them online).
Let's see - you go to a store, have no intention of buying and tehn complain about the sales staff? I understand wanting to see something before you buy; but how can you expect a store to have good staff if there's no money in it?
I used to buy all my video games at a local mom and pop store - great service, great owner. yes, I paid retail but the service was worth it. Wanted a PS3 when they first came out? No problem, and no markup - MSRP. Thinking about a game - if it was crao he'd say so - and generally didn't stock it because he didn't want to have unhappy customers. A staff that was knowledgeable about the games and customer oriented - check. unfortunately he went out of business because most people want to save $5 on a game and go to a big box or online.,/p>
To quote Pogo - "we have met the enemy and he is us."
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be modestly surprised if they were to do it for free(whoever they buy the map data from would want money for an offline offering, and Google's ability to wring adsense out of offline users would be pretty limited); but I don't see any particular strategic or philosophical reason why google wouldn't, at some point, kick out an offline offering as a paid thing.
I can think of a good reason to keep it free - the huge dataset you build from users. Think about it. Google gets
Free testing and trouble reporting on the ap and data
Usage data that can be packaged and sold - popular routes, searches for things along the route,etc.
User familiarity with an ap that can also be packaged for commercial use and sale; especially since a phone allows two way data communication and messaging at a relatively low cost. They could also roll out notebook/netbook/tablet versions as well.
Just some random thoughts; but I do believe the data Google can collect and package; as well as selling custom versions to business is where the money is, not the average phone user. The average phone user, however, is valuable for building the dataset and free will get a lot of users. In the US at least, Google has their own map data so using it on and offline should not be a license issue>
You are 100% wrong.
You can NEVER waive or lose your inalienable rights. They are inalienable.
The fact that the government does strip them away is ridiculous. The fact that the government allows it to happen between private parties is equally ridiculous.
The government is charged with protecting the rights of the people. I don't know who convinced you that the Constitution is just boundaries for the government (to ignore) - the Constitution is documentation of what the government is and what it must and must not do.
It sickens me that people can read the Constitution and not comprehend the simple language it contains.
"For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights."
Yes it does. Yes it does.
The fact that the courts have interpreted it incorrectly does not change what is factually correct or what is written.
Inalienable rights are inalienable. No one can rightfully prevent me from going anywhere I want in this country with any weapon I want, nor can they prevent me from going to your house and calling you a fucking moron.
I am, of course, responsible for any demonstrable, direct consequences of my actions. If I'm violating a noise ordinance or public nuisance law, if I'm trespassing, etc., I expect to be punished.
If I carry an assault rifle and shoot up a mall of people, and somehow live out my 5 life sentences, no one can prevent me from carrying an assault rifle to a mall when I get out of prison.
Freedom something security something deserve neither something something.
If that scares you, this is the wrong country for you. Or it at least it's supposed to be.
You have a very bizarre and incorrect view of the Constitution - it explicit states the powers and limitations placed on the government; not the people.
You might view it as creating a super nanny state that forces individuals to act in a certain way; but that view is clearly incorrect. I prefer the state not to take away my freedoms by trying to enforce restrictions place on it on me and my property.
In the end, its my property, my decision - you have no right to do anything on or with my property without my consent; and I don't want the government telling me otherwise. Yo have no rights to free speech or to carry a gun or assemble or practice your religion on my property. Nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.
No. Contracts require signatures and are not implicit upon purchase of goods and services.
Seems to me I don't have to provide any signature to purchase airline tickets.
A contract does not require a signature - only offer, acceptance and consideration; which a purchase of an airline ticket satisfies.
There is no excusing this bullshit, and no amount of legal rhetoric can change the fundamental fact that INALIENABLE RIGHTS are being violated. These rights are supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE to waive - they are inalienable, and it is the government's DUTY to PROTECT them.
You seem to think somehow the US Constitution limits what individuals, not the government, can do. You are simply wrong. Individuals enter into contracts everyday that place limits on their actions that restrict them from exercising their rights. The key aspects are they are doing so voluntarily and that it is individuals, not the government, that are so doing.
For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights.
Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.
No I haven't.
When you buy a ticket you have. The contract of carriage (you know, that multi-page document that forms a contract between you and the airline) will have some words to the following effect:
Passengers and their baggage are subject to surveillance and inspection by electronic and/or physical means with or without the passenger’s consent or knowledge.
So once you buy a ticket you've agreed to be searched; they don't even have to ask you again when they do it. You only choice is to not buy the ticket if you don't want to be searched. If you refuse to be searched then the can deny you boarding, as detailed in the section on the carrier's right to refuse transport:
Search of Passenger or Property-Any passenger who refuses to permit the search of his or her person or property for explosives, hazardous materials, contraband, or concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapons or articles.
I don't voluntarily agree do anything.
Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.
It is unreasonable because it costs the tax payer untold amounts of money, wastes untold amounts of time, is an invasion of privacy, and it is all completely ineffectual.
None of which, independent of your agreeing to be searched , makes the security procedure an constitutional violation of the "unreasonable search" provision.
Since the by-product is helium, a reactor leak would only mean that any nearby residents would talk like Mickey Mouse for a little while. Which is better than radiation sickness.
Until you get sued by Disney for trademark infringement...
The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If 99% of planes got hijacked and crashed, it would still be unconstitutional.
...against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The argument for them is that it is not an unreasonable search since you voluntarily agree to the search by accessing the secure area of the airport. You may not like that argument; but that does not mean the search was unreasonable.
Groucho Marx is a fine man; Slashdot should leave him alone.
Yes, but Lennon's music was better.
You're totally right, and I'd agree if in this case, everyone pooled out to the strip clubs after the event.
But in this case, the strippers are company sponsored and *in* the conference :-(
Yea, in Yahoo's case it should have been a WTF moment when it was first proposed.
The difference arises because if I 'buy' the CD, I can't use it as freely as the paint and furniture that I buy.
This is the fundamental flaw in a system where I have no choice _not_ to rent the CD. Since the CD inherently comes with legally enforceable strings attached even when I do buy it.
Because, as you point out, you are only buying the physical disk, not the music. You have a choice, however. Buying the music would cost a lot more than the cost of the CD; since you are not willing to pay that, you don't get the music. however, you are willing to pay the asking price for paint, fittings, etc, and so the owner sells the entire object to you.
Fortunately, there is some level of sanity in other industries when it comes to 'IP'.
How so? You can't produce copies of many objects; you can't use them in derivative works in some cases; you own the object only.
Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
Actually you're quite right, it's very similar:
When renting a building, imagine that the landlord was then obligated to seek out every manufacturer of fittings, paints, carpets, lino, furniture, etc. And pay them ongoing royalties. That's too hard.
So lets just let the landlord collect and keep that 'rent'! Much simpler to administer.
In general, the landlord has bought, not rented or otherwise arranged for use of the property. I do agree, however, that it is much more efficient to collect the money upstream in the process (such as the radio station) rather than further downstream.
The problem, as I see it, is that stations have much more power than individual radio owners. If stations are pushed to hard on radio, they can alter formats and play lists to minimize costs and / or demand reductions for playing new music; limiting a key marketing vehicle (and potential hit maker) for record producers.
As always, follow the money.
It's disrespectful to men.
I don't want a stripper begging me for money.
I've been put in this situation before and there was nothing I could do except play the game and shove money down her pants. The stripper knows it and she exploits it. Next time I encounter an event like that, I'm telling my coworkers to have fun, I'll walk straight out and tell the organizer to fuck off.
Why can't you? I've been in that situation, as a designated driver, and had no problem not shoving money into a g-string. One thing about strippers - they are in it for the money. You are simply a conduit for moving it from your wallet to hers. Once they realize you are not going to shell out cash, they leave you alone. A simple "I'm here to drive my friends home safely and am not interested, thanks," gets them moving on to the next guy. Word quickly gets around and you get left alone.
As for my friends, if they give me hard time I simply tell them I'm a cheap SOB and will not waste money when there is nothing in it for me.
I'm shocked to discover, an emerging world power is spying on the existing world power and is trying to get its weapons technology...
Seriously, this shouldn't even be news. What countermeasures are being taken is a lot more interesting — for both us and the Chinese — but should be kept just as secret for the latter reason...
You hit it square on the head - countermeasures allow for not only stopping intrusions but feeding bogus information or incorporating features in software that may be useful in the future - trap doors, equipment malfunctions, etc.
>> Should the builders, paint manufacturers, etc. get 'royalties' because you use their products commercially? >> >> I don't think so.
> Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
No, it's not rent. The issue is not how you pay for the building (and not how you pay for the music), but the purpose for which it's used.
Ditto for the music. It is argued (also in the Netherlands), that commercial use of music adds value to the experience, or makes workers work better. This is a bogus argument as this is true for just about anything. A building is better than open-air, so if you convert your house to a shop (small shops are often houses in the Netherlands), then suddenly you are supposed to pay the builders, the brick manufacturers, the electriciens, etc. extra money each year because you use your house commercially.
Another example: A comfortable chair in an office. If you use it at home, no problem, use it in the office instead of crappy chairs, and bingo, you're supposed to pay the manufacturer, and anyone who helped make it. Absurd!
While I believe I understand your point I think you missed mine:
You have an opportunity, whenever you make a decision on how to acquire property (and I would classify a song as property that has vested property rights) - buy or rent.
What you chose depends on how you assign value and the cost of each option. You don't assign enough value to a song to buy it outright, so you rent it via a license fee. Many other objects, however, are simply cheaper to buy outright. Since you own the object you owe no one else any money regardless of the use.
> Everyone here is going to talk about how outrageous it is for a supermarket > to be charged for playing the radio, but the fact of the matter is that they > use the radio to create a pleasant environment for their customers, which > makes it a tool of commerce.
Yes, and so is the building itself, the paint to make the walls look nice, and much more.
Should the builders, paint manufacturers, etc. get 'royalties' because you use their products commercially?
I don't think so.
Some do, it's called rent. The choice is to either buy everything outright, or pay a fee for it's use on an ongoing basis. You could buy the right sto a song; just as you can a building; or simply pay an ongoing fee for it's use (and the stuff inside) without every owning anything.
So "used as a tool of commerce" is just not a valid argument.
Just as with the building/paint/what's in the building, the radio has already been paid for. Via tax (as in NL) and/or the radio stations which pay to transmit. Everyone can freely listen to the radio privately, so why should anyone have to pay to use it in a store?
While I agree it should only be paid for once - whether it's via a tax (although I find the notion I should pay a tax / TV just to own one absurd) or the stations paying for performance rights; that unfortunately isn't the case.
So my follow-on question is, Why does everyone think it's OK for private companies answerable to no one (or the highest bidder) to be collecting this information in the first place? Well, yes, I suppose most people in this thread don't think so, but all of the normal people out there seem to be perfectly happy with the idea.
Because they don't view the Bill of Rights as sound and enlightened principles to be honored wherever possible that happened to be enshrined in the Constitution. They view them as rules like any other. Then they note that either the rules don't apply to those private companies or they would be difficult to enforce, and for them, that's that. It's a mentality that is all about what is allowed or what can be gotten away with, rather than what is right or wrong.
Probably because the Bill of Rights and the rest of the US Constitution define the powers given t the government as well as specific restrictions placed on it; not private citizens, corporations, or other non-governmental agencies. While I feel they are fundamental to our way of government; I would not want to be subject to the restrictions placed on the government; for example I value the ability to control who speaks using my property, and to control the possession of firearms on my property.
I do have a more immediate question. If an average citizen hires a person to do something illegal, both the person and the one he hired can be charged with a crime. If it's illegal for the CIA to gather data on American citizens, why is it suddenly legal when they do the same thing by proxy? Why wouldn't both they and the company they hired be prosecuted for this?
Because the CIA is not asking the companies to do anything illegal; any more than you would be if you hire an armed off duty police officer to provide security when local laws forbid you from carrying a concealed weapon. The CIA is not forbidden by law from buying publically avaialble information; nor from collecting open source intelligence.
... If an employee drops their phone and needs to replace it ASAP, someone in the company can pull the SIM card, put it into a new phone, and the employee is back to work with minimal downtime - unless you're on a non-GSM carrier in which case you need to have the magic store deactivate the old phone, sell you a new phone, activate it, etc...
When I was on verizon, all it took to swap phones was to enter the new ID into my account online. I could switch phones anytime with no problems.
TI can EABOD. You shouldn't be able to use any program-able calculator on the ACT or SAT. There is a reason that the FE (fundamentals of engineering) exams allow only specific calculators. The TI-8x and 9X series are really shitty netbooks.
FE Exam calcs.
Hewlett Packard: The HP 33s and HP 35s models, but no others.
Isn't the 35s programmable? The specs seem to claim that it is:
Programmable with keystroke programming
Is the memory volatile so you can't save prorgams?
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
I do wish her well, though...
Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future, and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.
As for the red tape, knowing the law can be of very little use, especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply don't care what you think the law is; they've been doing it like this for years. Piss them off? Opps, your file is missing a key form. Please send it in again (so I can shred it). Threaten to sue? Go ahead, it'll be years before you get a verdict.
P>Not all are like that, but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system.
I think you're giving the man too much credit. You're reasoning is that because he knew a technology back in the 80s he should be aware of how technology works 20 years later and in a completely different medium.
He understands how to use a medium to make money, all it is is a different way to deliver content. in fact, he doesn't need to understand the technology, only how it can be used profitably.
It seems to me that this is more of a cause of him not understanding exactly how the internet works. Especially since he calls them "plagiarists" and "content kleptomaniacs*", which implies he thinks that they somehow are copying and keeping his content. Maybe he was just trying to be dramatic to get more attention, but I'm still pretty sure he's not exactly sure what it means when a search engine links to the page of a website without going through it. (This is guessing a lot, but I tend to think he believes that if he goes to paid content using a Google search will bring you to the content by going around the page that asks you to pay for it.)
He's a newspaper man. he knows how to arise passion and inflame people with words. That's his business, and he has been very successful at it. He knows exactly what he is doing, and how to fight. Don't count him out; even if you don't agree with anything he says it would be a mistake to think he can't get his message out successfully.
We spend more on healthcare to cover 25% of the people than countries with socialized medicine pay to cover 100%. We either need to go to 100% following one of their models (thus increasing services and reducing cost at the same time) or abandon all government interference in health care and cut that massive chunk out of the budget.
We could start by limiting the US healthcare consumer's subsidization of foreign healthcare costs - require any drug company doing business in the US to sell drugs at a best price level - i.e. what the drug is sold for in the EU or Canada.
Of course, that would drastically alter the pharma industry's business model; or raise prices outside of the US while dropping them in the US.
If the scores are all the same, then it really doesn't matter who gets in. An essay is a shitty way to select engineering students and doesn't gauge anything other than their ability to make up 500 words of bullshit. That said, a first come, first served system would be appropriate when determine who gets accepted when scores are identical.
An essay is a good way to distinguish between a group with similar test scores and grades. Grades and test scores are merely an indicator of ability to do the academic work; table stakes if you will. An essay lets you learn a little something about the person, and how they think; not that they can think.
The author referred to the UofC's essays - an interesting set that lets the applicant show who they are; the UofC's questions also reflect the somewhat wacky nature of the school. I've read admission's essays; many are rehashes of the same sterile story line; a few engage you and make you think. The latter are the ones that get admitted. As a side note, a few tend to forget to do a find and replace of some other college's name - those go in the "Thanks for playing; we have no lovely parting gifts for you."
Asimov - Nightfall. One of his best short stories.
Harlan Ellison - Repent Harlequin said the tick tock man
Two classics with very different styles.
While there are a lot of choices out there (I like Canons and HP's personally) look at the cost of consumables (toner and the fuser drum) to help decide what to buy. Color is nice but the consumable costs are often higher than plain old B&W printers, and sometimes are hard to find as refills. Once you find some that have an affordable cost per page you can decide which best meets your needs. I don't use PS so while I like the old Brotehr H1440 I picked up on sale for around $50 a few years back it probably won't meet your needs. It had acceptable output so I bought it based on low initial price and low (at the time) price per page.
I was shopping for a new laptop for my wife a year or two ago and browsing Circuit City (no intentions of buying there, I just like to get my hands on the products before I buy them online).
Let's see - you go to a store, have no intention of buying and tehn complain about the sales staff? I understand wanting to see something before you buy; but how can you expect a store to have good staff if there's no money in it?
I used to buy all my video games at a local mom and pop store - great service, great owner. yes, I paid retail but the service was worth it. Wanted a PS3 when they first came out? No problem, and no markup - MSRP. Thinking about a game - if it was crao he'd say so - and generally didn't stock it because he didn't want to have unhappy customers. A staff that was knowledgeable about the games and customer oriented - check. unfortunately he went out of business because most people want to save $5 on a game and go to a big box or online.,/p>
To quote Pogo - "we have met the enemy and he is us."