I was exaggerating the point about them specifying the no-cash terms to eliminate the probably common situation where a restaurant has "no credit cards" or "no cash" in tiny, tiny print someplace on the back cover where it would legitimately be possible to not know their terms.
But you're right, they have to specify the terms of payment FIRST before you go into debt with them. If I walk into a restaurant and sit down, order a meal, but am never presented with terms of payment until they had me the bill they cannot refuse a cash payment and still claim I owe them money.
But if I DO go into debt with them without specified terms they CANNOT refuse payment in dollars.
And more than likely to make it stick they have to be clear and unambiguous about their payment terms. It's not enough to have 6 point type on the back of the menu announcing you only accept uncut stones or gold bullion.
Sounds like we are in violent agreement here. A contract requires a "Meeting of the minds;" something I doubt would occur with 6pt type hidden on the back of teh menu.
Now, in the case of the OP's restaurant example, you go into a restaurant and sit down and order a meal and you eat it you have now created a debt -- the contract terms were you getting to order and be served the food we sell. In this case, the nature of the contract (sitting, ordering and eating) causes you and the restaurant to enter into a contract which assumes you will pay after the meal.
In this case, the restaurant can't claim non payment if you offer them cash. They CAN post signs that say "NO CASH ACCEPTED", write it on their menu and have the wait staff ask how you plan to pay the meal and reinforce their terms -- even ask for your credit card up front-- but unless they do this and get verbal agreement from you that you agree to not pay in cash, those contract terms don't count. They can't refuse a cash payment after entering into a contract to serve you food after you have been served the food.
Once you order and are served the food you have created a debt. They can ASK you to pay in chickens, beads or some other non-cash form of payment but if you offer them cash they cannot refuse payment simply because they don't want cash and claim you didn't pay them since those terms of payment weren't spelled out before the debt was created.
If they specify terms, they do not need your verbal agreement for you to have accepted them. They made an offer - provide a meal and not be paid in cash; you accepted that offer when you ordered, they provided the ordered meal, you ate now you must abide by the terms of the contract you accepted. But to the OP's point - there is no federal law that requires anyone to accept US currency in payment of debts. Private entities can establish their own rules for acceptance of cash.
Once you've ordered a meal, you are in debt for the value of the meal. The restaurant owner has to accept any and all legal tender, just as the GP said.
Basically, if you try to buy something in pennies as a "screw you" they can refuse to accept it - and everybody's still squared up. But if you owe somebody money they have to accept what you give them (I believe there are laws specifying the dollar value of various change that must be accepted for debts).
If they don't specify beforehand then it would be reasonable to assume they accept legal tender in payment; they can specify "No Cash Accepted" or "No bill larger than $20" and no federal law forces them to accept the cash. In that case, they can refuse your cash and request another form of payment.
BitCoin is not a currency but a commodity and behaves like one; a very volatile one at that. Money's function is to act as a means of storing value; I can do 1 dollar of work, get a bill and keep that to buy 1 dollar's worth of food and be assured it will be still roughly the same amount in the future. There is little volatility, especially short term, in prices and thus people have faith in Dollars or Euros as a means to store value. BitCoin's volatility make sit suspect as a means of stored value since you do not know what it will be worth tomorrow or even the next hour. You may take it on speculation it will go up (and many people buying it are doing that) but that is a standard commodity strategy; not a monetary one.
To add to the problem BitCoin faces is there is not assurance you can sell as much as you want at a quoted price; no one makes the market so if you put in a sell order for 100000 BitCoins at $250 who ensures you actually get that price? Exchanges close when faced with too much volume; not a good thing to build trust especially when that volume is a tiny fraction of other commodity exchanges. In addition, there appears to be no derivative market for BitCoin; no futures, no short sells, etc. It's more like buying the actual grain than a futures contract.
People like to compare BitCoin to gold but BitCoin is more like Dutch Tulips - a pure speculative play. Despite controls on production there is no way to prevent someone from creating ByteCoins to compete in the market as a substitute which could lessen demand for (and value of) BitCoins.
2. On your US dollar bill, you'll see "This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private". If you go to a restaurant, order a meal, and offer the appropriate amount of cash to pay for your meal, the restaurant owner cannot legally refuse to accept your cash and then have you arrested for not paying your debt to them. Again, this is enforced by the police and court system.
That is not true - there is no federal law that any private entity accept US Dollars in payment; they can refuse to accept any or all of it as a form of payment. A cop may refuse to arrest you for non-payment but that does not mean dollars have to be accepted in payment.
From treasury.gov:
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Netflix probably wants DRM too, FWIW. Remember their model is based upon people getting unlimited access to their library but paying by the month. If it were easy for their customers to simply download and save all the movies they're interested in over the space of a month, and then unsubscribe for a few months until the next time they see movies they're interested in, then the entire model would break down - less revenues received, and more money spent on bandwidth per month.
You can already do that with various screen capture programs; although the quality is blah and it takes a lot of HD space.
Quite frankly, NetFlix has a pretty good model - a decent selection of material to stream at a reasonable monthly price.
I'm wondering, actually, if the long term solution is in things like Cinavia, which, in theory, implements enough of the "checking the license in hardware" that the system (or one evolved from it) could conceivably be built into PCs and tablets without preventing the transportation and decoding part of the process being open source.
Of course, that wouldn't work today, it'd require the majority of monitors and tablets support the system to the point people find it difficult to get a device that doesn't have this built in, so it's not really going to work for Netflix today.
Personally, i wouldn't mind an on device DRM solution if it allowed me to view content offline; such as when flying. I'd even pay a little extra per month for it.
The rent rather than buy model is pretty compelling; it offers a large library and easy access at the cost of one DVD a month. Simply being able to use an on screen menu is a big plus; I have a huge DVD collection, most of which has yet to be watched, simply because it is a hassle to burn them all to disk or go dig for the one I want. i often find myself watching something on NetFlix I already own simply because it is easy; the physical DVDs are general burned to a format I can put on my iPad for traveling.
The Librarian of Congress granted a DMCA exemption for collections of obselete computer software archived for purposes of preservation. Not sure if it would apply to scanned manuals and documentation.
You explain but don't cut your rates. Clients eventually learn, especially when the cheap guy screws up big time. Then you charge extra to clean up the mess.
This works on about 20% of the potential clients you interface with. The ones it is a pleasure to work for. They are the exception not the rule.
True, but they are the ones to nurture. The problem with cutting rates is you can never get back to your old rate; clients tend to say "but you did it for X before..." The price buyers will always be looking for a lowball price; and sometimes tehy are the ones who could easily afford to pay a higher rate. I get the "we're a big company so having us as a client will look good..." argument; sometimes I feel like saying "Gee, you're right. Do you make 50% less here than at XYZ so you can have big company name on your resume?" Obviously, if you need the work because it is the only option you are stuck; but view it as a transactional deal while you look for a better paying gig. You don't want to be stuck long term and miss other opportunities.
Competition is a good thing...unless they are competing against you. It's even worse when your competition doesn't know anything about business and bid out so low it won't cover their own expenses. Your customer indignantly asks why they should pay your outrageous prices when the other guy is 65% cheaper.
You explain but don't cut your rates. Clients eventually learn, especially when the cheap guy screws up big time. Then you charge extra to clean up the mess.
No one gets paid vacations, holidays, benefits, etc. an employer determines how much useful work they need and how much, including all the non pay expenses of an employee, they are willing to pay. That number can be divided by hours, weeks or fortnights but that just makes it seem you are getting all those benefits when unreality all they are dong is adjusting your rate to include all the"paid" non productive time. The real question is "can you make enough per gig to cover those expenses and to love in a lifestyle you desire?" Pay by gig merely represents a different way of looking at renumeration. The author clearly has a POV and thus frames the argument in as net that supports his POV. Nothing wrong with that but that does not mean his conclusions are correct and his points valid.
his salary is paid from taxes. It's HIS lunches that are paid by tax dollars.
NO, the WORK he does for the University is paid for by tax dollars. He then chooses to spend them on lunch. His lunches are "paid from" his work effort.
If his lunches were "paid by tax dollars", that would mean he was eating for free. He's not.
Many universities offer benefits not directly related to work either. The faculty club which uses university facilities; the ability to use of free recreational facilities, internet access that can be used for non-work related activities; the ability to buy football tickets - there are many benefits that one could argue are not related to work but rather make employment more attractive and thus recruiting easier. Should all of those be taxed as well? The real challenge is what is the value of teh benefits and how do you calculate tax impact? Do I track each meal? At some point, reality needs to creep into the decision making process.
If data can be collected someone will collected; once it is collected there is a strong "need" to use. This certainly can be used to help improve coursework; especially if aggregate data shows patterns where material can be improved. If there is correlation between scores and performance than it is worthwhile to see if their is causation as well and use that to help improve learning. OTOH, factoring that into grading would be problematic, since learning styles differ. I took an English Lit class in college and never opened the book and got an A. Why? I had read the book a few years ago and so was familiar enough with the text to discuss and analyze it. Of course, as one of my professors put it" I don't care if you come to class or do any work, we've already got your money. What you get from your investment is up to you."
The weapons in the photos look scary, but I bet they'd be really rubbish in real life. For example, the club is made from a rolled up magazine and some Liberty statuettes. It is small, not very heavy, not very sharp, and would probably fall apart if it was used.
Really any of these weapons is insignificant compared to what an fit but unarmed human can do. And that's why aeroplanes are safe these days: any hijacker will have to take on a hundred or more strong and highly motivated passengers.
+1. The rules have changed - it used to be "submit, avoid confrontation and eventually the hijackers will release you; even if it is after a prolonged period of time." Now it is "Kill the bastards before they can kill you." Whenever I fly I take note of what I can use to protect myself - whether it is my very sharp point all metal pen, my all metal laptop, or the power cord.
That pimple on the ass country is actually making us change our military test plans? Puhhhlllease.
No, it the normal thing sane countries do when tensions are high. They want to avoid a miscalculation that results in an outcome that neither side wants. It's part of the rules. For example, Bears regularly conducted surveillance overflights on carrier battle groups. They knew not to open bomb bay doors, and we simply trailed them. Sometimes, a country breaks the rules; such as Libya when several MIGs kept turning towards 2 F-14s every time the Tomcats turned away to indicate they were not intending to engage; so we splashed the two MIGs.
A vacuum is not a direct competitor to the broom. I have both, as I would bet most folks do. Brooms are for hard surfaces and vacuums for soft.
Ever heard of a sweeper broom? Works fine on soft surfaces; no need for a vacuum.
Either way a vacuum offers some utility to the end user, DRM does not.
The question is does effective DRM hold down the price of games? While I am no fan of DRM; I find Steam a viable option since many of teh games are quite reasonably priced relative to boxed versions.
in branding. Not because of any stigma (most of their audience never heard of Linux anyway); rather because the could not control the Linux brand. Anyone could build a LinuxBook "just like Google's" whereas only Google builds a ChromeBook. They can create a specific brand to differentiate their product from generic Linux machines; and use that to carve out a market niche.
I quickly grew to despise Ohio State after they changed their official name to The Ohio State University. This is literally emphasized by former alums (heh) playing in the NFL when they announce their names and schools.
'The' Ohio State... was there really confusion about *which* state university in Ohio has a stadium large enough to be seen from orbit?
Wow. You must be really old. The Ohio State University changed its name to its current one in 1888 from Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College.
What's so hard to understand? I like to have a games on my laptop or other device which I can play on an airplane, on the commuter rail, on a camping trip, etc...
I doubt that an XBOX is targeted at airline or commuter train use; and when I go camping a generator is not exactly on my "put in ruck" list
He then likened people who worry about intermittent internet connectivity being an issue as the same as someone not buying a vacuum cleaner because the electricity sometimes goes out.
So if we were to fulfill that analogy you would have to expect there are vacuum cleaners that already exist that run without electricity --
There is - it is called a broom. Unfortunately, most people prefer a vacuum cleaner because it provides a better user experience. Sure, there are times when a broom is quite acceptable; but most people won't give up the vacuum in favor of the broom. That said, I am not surprised people are upset about always on DRM. The real issue, which his comments mask, is always on DRM is a way to prevent resale of games. Quite frankly, those without internet connectivity are probably not a big market for MS anyway; at least not for expensive new games.
I don't see why the transfer would not be legitimate regardless of whether or not the original owner can illegally use the media after-the-fact. A user can buy a CD, copy the contents to their hard drive, and then resell the CD. That sale would be completely legitimate and legal and the buyer would be in the clear. If the original owner went back and actually used the copied files, then the original owner would be breaking the law because they have already transferred their license but the sale would still be legitimate and legal. Why not treat digital goods the same way?
While I agree with you, it appears because of the law specifically addressing copying and the the rights of copyright holders to control it digital is treated differently. Essentially in one case a physical good changes hands and in the second a copy is made. I guess it could be argued that someone could buy the song, put it in cloud storage, and transfer the access rights to a third party since no "copy" is made.
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
One of the key points seemed to be that no physical good was exchanged; so a DVD version of the game would be re-salable under TDoFS but a digital version such as from Steam or iTunes would not be. the judge said that because the transfer involved copying a file it was infringing; whereas a physical version form teh copyright owner would not.
Interestingly, a strong DRM system that ensured only 1 person could use the item might not infringe since you could transfer the key w/o copying the file. A service such as Steam could then provide a new licensed copy of the file and prevent the original key holder form using the game.
It doesn't matter. Nobody needs to make such a guarantee. As long as it is perceived that you can exchange BTC for dollars people will accept it in lieu of dollars and people will give you dollars for it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That is exactly what I said - unless you can be assured of a liquid market for bitcoins they will not be widely accepted. As you say and I pointed out, the perception of that bitcoins have value for someone in exchange for what you want is the key to their acceptability as a medium of exchange. Right now, unlike ost currency, there is no way to provide that assurance other than the belief someone will accept it and is for what you paid for it or more.
If I offer to send BTC to your Mtgox account for $80 each right now are you going to accept? Of course you are, because you know you can instantly turn around and sell that for $94. Thus you and I both perceive it to be worth at least $80. And if you don't believe in USD we can play the same game with Euros, or silver, or gold. From here it is no longer a question of whether it is worth something but merely one of how much it is worth.
As long as you have a liquid market anyone will take advantage of arbitrage opportunities. But let me ask you this - if someone wanted to sell a billion dollars euros, pounds, etc) of bitcoins would they find buyers at the current price? I doubt it. It's not a currency but a commodity and behaves like one.
Then perhaps you could say that Bitcoin is backed by the US Dollar. Since it usually has to be exchanged to be spent, then it's just an instrument to facilitate the transfer.
That's different than being backed by the US Dollar - there is no guarantee you can get dollars for bit coins. You can only get what and how much someone else is willing to give you. It's not really a currency but more like a very loosely controlled commodity exchange. There is no assurance you will be able to sell any bitcoins you have nor that anyone will accept them for payment. Currency have value because they are a way to store value - a euro can be exchanged for work and I can keep the euro with some assurance someone else will take in the future.
Completely wrong. The bitcoin network adjusts difficulty, so that every 10 minutes a new block is created. The reward for a block currently is 25BTC.
If ASICS are out (Avalon ButterflyLabs), then they will take most of the generated coins. They won't make more. So you can start "mining" with a supercomputer and the only thing you will see is that you will take most of the rewards. The network will speed up (transaction verification), but it won't inflate the coin. Actually price will go up as it won't be easy to mine by your windows gaming machine stuffed full of GPUs.
I am really new at this, but researching for a week. I don't think I am wrong, but if you think, please enlighten me!
cheers
That's the point - if one person can capture most of the rewards then they can control the supply of bitcoins; withholding supply or dumping them as they want. That creates volatility and uncertainty in the market and would lessen the demand for bitcoins as a currency; other than for fast buy bitcoin spend bit coin type transactions. The way to attack bitcoins is through the market dynamics that impact value; the question is how big of a percentage of the supply is needed and who has the capability (and desire) to do that.
Ultimately, it's a cost of doing business. It works out to about $3 per hour, so employees wind up getting paid less unless you can recoup those costs from what you charge to MS. My guess is employees wind up getting paid less unless they have a very specific in high demand skill set.
Slashdot Mirror
I was exaggerating the point about them specifying the no-cash terms to eliminate the probably common situation where a restaurant has "no credit cards" or "no cash" in tiny, tiny print someplace on the back cover where it would legitimately be possible to not know their terms.
But you're right, they have to specify the terms of payment FIRST before you go into debt with them. If I walk into a restaurant and sit down, order a meal, but am never presented with terms of payment until they had me the bill they cannot refuse a cash payment and still claim I owe them money.
But if I DO go into debt with them without specified terms they CANNOT refuse payment in dollars.
And more than likely to make it stick they have to be clear and unambiguous about their payment terms. It's not enough to have 6 point type on the back of the menu announcing you only accept uncut stones or gold bullion.
Sounds like we are in violent agreement here. A contract requires a "Meeting of the minds;" something I doubt would occur with 6pt type hidden on the back of teh menu.
Now, in the case of the OP's restaurant example, you go into a restaurant and sit down and order a meal and you eat it you have now created a debt -- the contract terms were you getting to order and be served the food we sell. In this case, the nature of the contract (sitting, ordering and eating) causes you and the restaurant to enter into a contract which assumes you will pay after the meal.
In this case, the restaurant can't claim non payment if you offer them cash. They CAN post signs that say "NO CASH ACCEPTED", write it on their menu and have the wait staff ask how you plan to pay the meal and reinforce their terms -- even ask for your credit card up front-- but unless they do this and get verbal agreement from you that you agree to not pay in cash, those contract terms don't count. They can't refuse a cash payment after entering into a contract to serve you food after you have been served the food.
Once you order and are served the food you have created a debt. They can ASK you to pay in chickens, beads or some other non-cash form of payment but if you offer them cash they cannot refuse payment simply because they don't want cash and claim you didn't pay them since those terms of payment weren't spelled out before the debt was created.
If they specify terms, they do not need your verbal agreement for you to have accepted them. They made an offer - provide a meal and not be paid in cash; you accepted that offer when you ordered, they provided the ordered meal, you ate now you must abide by the terms of the contract you accepted. But to the OP's point - there is no federal law that requires anyone to accept US currency in payment of debts. Private entities can establish their own rules for acceptance of cash.
Once you've ordered a meal, you are in debt for the value of the meal. The restaurant owner has to accept any and all legal tender, just as the GP said.
Basically, if you try to buy something in pennies as a "screw you" they can refuse to accept it - and everybody's still squared up. But if you owe somebody money they have to accept what you give them (I believe there are laws specifying the dollar value of various change that must be accepted for debts).
If they don't specify beforehand then it would be reasonable to assume they accept legal tender in payment; they can specify "No Cash Accepted" or "No bill larger than $20" and no federal law forces them to accept the cash. In that case, they can refuse your cash and request another form of payment.
BitCoin is not a currency but a commodity and behaves like one; a very volatile one at that. Money's function is to act as a means of storing value; I can do 1 dollar of work, get a bill and keep that to buy 1 dollar's worth of food and be assured it will be still roughly the same amount in the future. There is little volatility, especially short term, in prices and thus people have faith in Dollars or Euros as a means to store value. BitCoin's volatility make sit suspect as a means of stored value since you do not know what it will be worth tomorrow or even the next hour. You may take it on speculation it will go up (and many people buying it are doing that) but that is a standard commodity strategy; not a monetary one.
To add to the problem BitCoin faces is there is not assurance you can sell as much as you want at a quoted price; no one makes the market so if you put in a sell order for 100000 BitCoins at $250 who ensures you actually get that price? Exchanges close when faced with too much volume; not a good thing to build trust especially when that volume is a tiny fraction of other commodity exchanges. In addition, there appears to be no derivative market for BitCoin; no futures, no short sells, etc. It's more like buying the actual grain than a futures contract.
People like to compare BitCoin to gold but BitCoin is more like Dutch Tulips - a pure speculative play. Despite controls on production there is no way to prevent someone from creating ByteCoins to compete in the market as a substitute which could lessen demand for (and value of) BitCoins.
2. On your US dollar bill, you'll see "This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private". If you go to a restaurant, order a meal, and offer the appropriate amount of cash to pay for your meal, the restaurant owner cannot legally refuse to accept your cash and then have you arrested for not paying your debt to them. Again, this is enforced by the police and court system.
That is not true - there is no federal law that any private entity accept US Dollars in payment; they can refuse to accept any or all of it as a form of payment. A cop may refuse to arrest you for non-payment but that does not mean dollars have to be accepted in payment.
From treasury.gov:
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Netflix probably wants DRM too, FWIW. Remember their model is based upon people getting unlimited access to their library but paying by the month. If it were easy for their customers to simply download and save all the movies they're interested in over the space of a month, and then unsubscribe for a few months until the next time they see movies they're interested in, then the entire model would break down - less revenues received, and more money spent on bandwidth per month.
You can already do that with various screen capture programs; although the quality is blah and it takes a lot of HD space.
Quite frankly, NetFlix has a pretty good model - a decent selection of material to stream at a reasonable monthly price.
I'm wondering, actually, if the long term solution is in things like Cinavia, which, in theory, implements enough of the "checking the license in hardware" that the system (or one evolved from it) could conceivably be built into PCs and tablets without preventing the transportation and decoding part of the process being open source.
Of course, that wouldn't work today, it'd require the majority of monitors and tablets support the system to the point people find it difficult to get a device that doesn't have this built in, so it's not really going to work for Netflix today.
Personally, i wouldn't mind an on device DRM solution if it allowed me to view content offline; such as when flying. I'd even pay a little extra per month for it.
The rent rather than buy model is pretty compelling; it offers a large library and easy access at the cost of one DVD a month. Simply being able to use an on screen menu is a big plus; I have a huge DVD collection, most of which has yet to be watched, simply because it is a hassle to burn them all to disk or go dig for the one I want. i often find myself watching something on NetFlix I already own simply because it is easy; the physical DVDs are general burned to a format I can put on my iPad for traveling.
Out of curiosity, how is this even legal?
The Librarian of Congress granted a DMCA exemption for collections of obselete computer software archived for purposes of preservation. Not sure if it would apply to scanned manuals and documentation.
You explain but don't cut your rates. Clients eventually learn, especially when the cheap guy screws up big time. Then you charge extra to clean up the mess.
This works on about 20% of the potential clients you interface with. The ones it is a pleasure to work for. They are the exception not the rule.
True, but they are the ones to nurture. The problem with cutting rates is you can never get back to your old rate; clients tend to say "but you did it for X before..." The price buyers will always be looking for a lowball price; and sometimes tehy are the ones who could easily afford to pay a higher rate. I get the "we're a big company so having us as a client will look good..." argument; sometimes I feel like saying "Gee, you're right. Do you make 50% less here than at XYZ so you can have big company name on your resume?" Obviously, if you need the work because it is the only option you are stuck; but view it as a transactional deal while you look for a better paying gig. You don't want to be stuck long term and miss other opportunities.
Competition is a good thing...unless they are competing against you. It's even worse when your competition doesn't know anything about business and bid out so low it won't cover their own expenses. Your customer indignantly asks why they should pay your outrageous prices when the other guy is 65% cheaper.
You explain but don't cut your rates. Clients eventually learn, especially when the cheap guy screws up big time. Then you charge extra to clean up the mess.
No one gets paid vacations, holidays, benefits, etc. an employer determines how much useful work they need and how much, including all the non pay expenses of an employee, they are willing to pay. That number can be divided by hours, weeks or fortnights but that just makes it seem you are getting all those benefits when unreality all they are dong is adjusting your rate to include all the"paid" non productive time. The real question is "can you make enough per gig to cover those expenses and to love in a lifestyle you desire?" Pay by gig merely represents a different way of looking at renumeration. The author clearly has a POV and thus frames the argument in as net that supports his POV. Nothing wrong with that but that does not mean his conclusions are correct and his points valid.
his salary is paid from taxes. It's HIS lunches that are paid by tax dollars.
NO, the WORK he does for the University is paid for by tax dollars. He then chooses to spend them on lunch. His lunches are "paid from" his work effort.
If his lunches were "paid by tax dollars", that would mean he was eating for free. He's not.
Many universities offer benefits not directly related to work either. The faculty club which uses university facilities; the ability to use of free recreational facilities, internet access that can be used for non-work related activities; the ability to buy football tickets - there are many benefits that one could argue are not related to work but rather make employment more attractive and thus recruiting easier. Should all of those be taxed as well? The real challenge is what is the value of teh benefits and how do you calculate tax impact? Do I track each meal? At some point, reality needs to creep into the decision making process.
If data can be collected someone will collected; once it is collected there is a strong "need" to use. This certainly can be used to help improve coursework; especially if aggregate data shows patterns where material can be improved. If there is correlation between scores and performance than it is worthwhile to see if their is causation as well and use that to help improve learning. OTOH, factoring that into grading would be problematic, since learning styles differ. I took an English Lit class in college and never opened the book and got an A. Why? I had read the book a few years ago and so was familiar enough with the text to discuss and analyze it. Of course, as one of my professors put it" I don't care if you come to class or do any work, we've already got your money. What you get from your investment is up to you."
The weapons in the photos look scary, but I bet they'd be really rubbish in real life. For example, the club is made from a rolled up magazine and some Liberty statuettes. It is small, not very heavy, not very sharp, and would probably fall apart if it was used.
Really any of these weapons is insignificant compared to what an fit but unarmed human can do. And that's why aeroplanes are safe these days: any hijacker will have to take on a hundred or more strong and highly motivated passengers.
+1. The rules have changed - it used to be "submit, avoid confrontation and eventually the hijackers will release you; even if it is after a prolonged period of time." Now it is "Kill the bastards before they can kill you." Whenever I fly I take note of what I can use to protect myself - whether it is my very sharp point all metal pen, my all metal laptop, or the power cord.
That pimple on the ass country is actually making us change our military test plans? Puhhhlllease.
No, it the normal thing sane countries do when tensions are high. They want to avoid a miscalculation that results in an outcome that neither side wants. It's part of the rules. For example, Bears regularly conducted surveillance overflights on carrier battle groups. They knew not to open bomb bay doors, and we simply trailed them. Sometimes, a country breaks the rules; such as Libya when several MIGs kept turning towards 2 F-14s every time the Tomcats turned away to indicate they were not intending to engage; so we splashed the two MIGs.
A vacuum is not a direct competitor to the broom. I have both, as I would bet most folks do. Brooms are for hard surfaces and vacuums for soft.
Ever heard of a sweeper broom? Works fine on soft surfaces; no need for a vacuum.
Either way a vacuum offers some utility to the end user, DRM does not.
The question is does effective DRM hold down the price of games? While I am no fan of DRM; I find Steam a viable option since many of teh games are quite reasonably priced relative to boxed versions.
in branding. Not because of any stigma (most of their audience never heard of Linux anyway); rather because the could not control the Linux brand. Anyone could build a LinuxBook "just like Google's" whereas only Google builds a ChromeBook. They can create a specific brand to differentiate their product from generic Linux machines; and use that to carve out a market niche.
I quickly grew to despise Ohio State after they changed their official name to The Ohio State University. This is literally emphasized by former alums (heh) playing in the NFL when they announce their names and schools. 'The' Ohio State... was there really confusion about *which* state university in Ohio has a stadium large enough to be seen from orbit?
Wow. You must be really old. The Ohio State University changed its name to its current one in 1888 from Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College.
What's so hard to understand? I like to have a games on my laptop or other device which I can play on an airplane, on the commuter rail, on a camping trip, etc...
I doubt that an XBOX is targeted at airline or commuter train use; and when I go camping a generator is not exactly on my "put in ruck" list
He then likened people who worry about intermittent internet connectivity being an issue as the same as someone not buying a vacuum cleaner because the electricity sometimes goes out.
So if we were to fulfill that analogy you would have to expect there are vacuum cleaners that already exist that run without electricity --
There is - it is called a broom. Unfortunately, most people prefer a vacuum cleaner because it provides a better user experience. Sure, there are times when a broom is quite acceptable; but most people won't give up the vacuum in favor of the broom. That said, I am not surprised people are upset about always on DRM. The real issue, which his comments mask, is always on DRM is a way to prevent resale of games. Quite frankly, those without internet connectivity are probably not a big market for MS anyway; at least not for expensive new games.
I don't see why the transfer would not be legitimate regardless of whether or not the original owner can illegally use the media after-the-fact. A user can buy a CD, copy the contents to their hard drive, and then resell the CD. That sale would be completely legitimate and legal and the buyer would be in the clear. If the original owner went back and actually used the copied files, then the original owner would be breaking the law because they have already transferred their license but the sale would still be legitimate and legal. Why not treat digital goods the same way?
While I agree with you, it appears because of the law specifically addressing copying and the the rights of copyright holders to control it digital is treated differently. Essentially in one case a physical good changes hands and in the second a copy is made. I guess it could be argued that someone could buy the song, put it in cloud storage, and transfer the access rights to a third party since no "copy" is made.
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
One of the key points seemed to be that no physical good was exchanged; so a DVD version of the game would be re-salable under TDoFS but a digital version such as from Steam or iTunes would not be. the judge said that because the transfer involved copying a file it was infringing; whereas a physical version form teh copyright owner would not.
Interestingly, a strong DRM system that ensured only 1 person could use the item might not infringe since you could transfer the key w/o copying the file. A service such as Steam could then provide a new licensed copy of the file and prevent the original key holder form using the game.
It doesn't matter. Nobody needs to make such a guarantee. As long as it is perceived that you can exchange BTC for dollars people will accept it in lieu of dollars and people will give you dollars for it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That is exactly what I said - unless you can be assured of a liquid market for bitcoins they will not be widely accepted. As you say and I pointed out, the perception of that bitcoins have value for someone in exchange for what you want is the key to their acceptability as a medium of exchange. Right now, unlike ost currency, there is no way to provide that assurance other than the belief someone will accept it and is for what you paid for it or more.
If I offer to send BTC to your Mtgox account for $80 each right now are you going to accept? Of course you are, because you know you can instantly turn around and sell that for $94. Thus you and I both perceive it to be worth at least $80. And if you don't believe in USD we can play the same game with Euros, or silver, or gold. From here it is no longer a question of whether it is worth something but merely one of how much it is worth.
As long as you have a liquid market anyone will take advantage of arbitrage opportunities. But let me ask you this - if someone wanted to sell a billion dollars euros, pounds, etc) of bitcoins would they find buyers at the current price? I doubt it. It's not a currency but a commodity and behaves like one.
Then perhaps you could say that Bitcoin is backed by the US Dollar. Since it usually has to be exchanged to be spent, then it's just an instrument to facilitate the transfer.
That's different than being backed by the US Dollar - there is no guarantee you can get dollars for bit coins. You can only get what and how much someone else is willing to give you. It's not really a currency but more like a very loosely controlled commodity exchange. There is no assurance you will be able to sell any bitcoins you have nor that anyone will accept them for payment. Currency have value because they are a way to store value - a euro can be exchanged for work and I can keep the euro with some assurance someone else will take in the future.
Completely wrong. The bitcoin network adjusts difficulty, so that every 10 minutes a new block is created. The reward for a block currently is 25BTC.
If ASICS are out (Avalon ButterflyLabs), then they will take most of the generated coins. They won't make more. So you can start "mining" with a supercomputer and the only thing you will see is that you will take most of the rewards. The network will speed up (transaction verification), but it won't inflate the coin. Actually price will go up as it won't be easy to mine by your windows gaming machine stuffed full of GPUs.
I am really new at this, but researching for a week. I don't think I am wrong, but if you think, please enlighten me! cheers
That's the point - if one person can capture most of the rewards then they can control the supply of bitcoins; withholding supply or dumping them as they want. That creates volatility and uncertainty in the market and would lessen the demand for bitcoins as a currency; other than for fast buy bitcoin spend bit coin type transactions. The way to attack bitcoins is through the market dynamics that impact value; the question is how big of a percentage of the supply is needed and who has the capability (and desire) to do that.
Ultimately, it's a cost of doing business. It works out to about $3 per hour, so employees wind up getting paid less unless you can recoup those costs from what you charge to MS. My guess is employees wind up getting paid less unless they have a very specific in high demand skill set.