AFAIK, they can refuse cash entirely as a form of payment, however, they can't refuse only certain kinds of cash. My memory is fuzzy on that, though.
It's the same principle. If you owe somebody a debt for a service or good that can't be undone, they have to accept cash in whatever denomination you feel like handing over. If you're in the middle of a transaction and they decide they don't feel like accepting a jar of pennies they can refuse to finish the transaction and the goods stay with them.
Then why does my local gas station refuse $50/$100 bills after I've filled my tank? Do they expect me to suck the gas back out for them?
I suspect because you give in when they ask if you've got anything else. Since the filling operation is not reversible, it's a debt. They have no legal standing to refuse payment with any legal currency you choose to give them. They can still make your life difficult, of course, but if it comes down to them calling the police the law is on your side.
The cashier in the story was quite incorrect. They can refuse a sale with notes they don't want ($2 bills, pennies, etc) but cannot refuse any legal tender as settlement of a debt.
Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere. At best, you are taking away future jobs to support current ones, or, to state exactly the same thing in different terms, you are borrowing from the future to support unsustainable lifestyles now . . . which is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.
Not exactly. Borrowing for the wrong reasons is what got us into this mess. Borrowing for the right reasons (increase future earning potential) can more than offset the debt, leaving you with an income large enough to both pay back what you owe and have more to live on than you ever would have without that initial debt. It happens all the time at an individual and corporate level, this is just expanding it to the entire country. The key is having the discipline to pay back the debt once the increased earnings are realized, which so far very few incarnations of government have had the discipline to do.
Sounds to me like that's if you're ordered by a court. I seriously doubt that taking steps to secure your machines from anonymous intrusions would fall under that law, as the police aren't going to send you an e-mail identifying themselves along with the trojan.
I'm sorry, but it's quite clear you do not understand science. To claim that ID and evolution have equivalent amounts of proof supporting them is just nonsensical.
No, I'm quite aware that some people think that ID is a valid theory. The problem is, they're wrong. The "evidence" they base it on consists mainly of a mis-understanding of the idea of "information" (the genetic code is information, which they mistakenly think implies intelligence), and an appeal to credulity in the form of the concept of irreducible complexity. Both are severely flawed, and fail to provide a reasonable foundation for a scientific theory.
As for "Dawkins let the panspermia cat out of the bag", that's just nonsense. Panspermia has been suggested millions of times before, and what he said was nothing new. Theorizing about the implications of a hypothesis doesn't automatically give any credence to the hypothesis in question, despite your assertion. I can say "if unicorns existed, jousting matches in medieval times would have been very different" without admitting "scientific status" re the existence of unicorns.
For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design. He answered NOTHING, but merely moved the issue to another planet.
As Dawkins himself answers here, the entire question at that point was nonsensical. Stein was asking a man who emphatically believes that Intelligent Design is nonsense to construct a scenario in which Intelligent Design might have happened. And as ID proponents so often point out when asked about the religious implications of their position, "they're not necessarily talking about a deity." Well, what does that leave, apart from aliens? The entire exchange in question is basically a believer getting a scientist to describe Intelligent Design's own belief structure, and then crucifying him because he didn't mention God. It's ID that's nonsensical, Dawkins was merely repeating your own words back to you.
Last I heard the only things actually broadcast in HD are the World series and the Super Bowl, so yeah, I'd say that if you're watching a lot of broadcast TV but not much sports, you're just as well off getting a 720p anyway.
What do you mean by "HD" here? Because a number of shows are available on broadcast television in full HD. Hell, we even have the Create channel broadcasting in 1080 in the major markets, and that's basically nothing but cooking shows.
Either way it's nonsense. As long as your TV has a digital receiver, you can pick up 1080 HD broadcasts using a $15 set of rabbit ears. Anybody who paid $50 for a special "high def" pair got royally ripped off.
Apparently not the same one as you, since Firefox hasn't crashed on me in about 2 years. Neither has IE, for that matter, although it doesn't get used nearly as much.
My question is, would you be as likely to buy a game such as that if you knew it would be difficult to resell? I'm guessing that there's a decent portion of the customer base for "new games" whose habit is financed through reselling their old titles.
He dared to question a government official and now all this info about him magically comes out.
Bullshit. His information is being looked up because John McCain has made him the centerpiece of his presidential campaign during the 3rd debate and for several weeks after. It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that this represents a reaction from his question to Obama.
There are some decent public schools in this country (I went to one). And almost anywhere you go, there's the opportunity to learn real things. The desire to do so is too often crushed by parents who show disdain for intellectual activity in the home, though, and the children pick up on it and the entire exercise goes downhill from there.
Both countries do indeed have rich and deep histories of democratic values, but the average citizen in either country couldn't tell you the first thing about that history. They can recite who won the last 5 seasons of Survivor, and the last celebrity to pull a Basic Instinct while getting out of a taxi, but ask any real question (do we have a state religion? when was "In God We Trust" added to our money? what is the 4th amendment, and why is it important?) and you're likely to be met with either a blank stare, or some disgustingly ill-informed and incorrect answer.
It's sort of an open question as to WHY this has happened, whether there are people actively trying to promote a strain of proud anti-intellectualism or whether it's just a natural progression, but the end result is that not enough people understand or care about these rights to know and care when they're taken away.
I know a guy who swears that this is the correct way to drive. I know instinctively that it's wrong (I've been driving manual for 12 years, since my first car, he just got his first manual and heard this from his dad or something) but I can't find anything authoritative to reference in describing why it's wrong.
"They develop the engine once, you pay for it 3 times. Sucker."
At least it's not like books, where a successful author learns to read and write once, and you pay for literally dozens of different books. Those are the real suckers.
its not as if i.t. is a stale field. its one of the most popular choices for youth actually.
That was true 3 or 4 years ago. I started undergrad in 2001, and it seemed to me that interest started to drop off steeply in subsequent years as the.com bubble collapsed and people just looking to make a quick buck moved over to biotech. Especially in the last couple years it's seemed like the number of good people looking for work has been dwindling, and fewer competent people are coming out of college.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same principle. If you owe somebody a debt for a service or good that can't be undone, they have to accept cash in whatever denomination you feel like handing over. If you're in the middle of a transaction and they decide they don't feel like accepting a jar of pennies they can refuse to finish the transaction and the goods stay with them.
I suspect because you give in when they ask if you've got anything else. Since the filling operation is not reversible, it's a debt. They have no legal standing to refuse payment with any legal currency you choose to give them. They can still make your life difficult, of course, but if it comes down to them calling the police the law is on your side.
The cashier in the story was quite incorrect. They can refuse a sale with notes they don't want ($2 bills, pennies, etc) but cannot refuse any legal tender as settlement of a debt.
Not exactly. Borrowing for the wrong reasons is what got us into this mess. Borrowing for the right reasons (increase future earning potential) can more than offset the debt, leaving you with an income large enough to both pay back what you owe and have more to live on than you ever would have without that initial debt. It happens all the time at an individual and corporate level, this is just expanding it to the entire country. The key is having the discipline to pay back the debt once the increased earnings are realized, which so far very few incarnations of government have had the discipline to do.
Sounds to me like that's if you're ordered by a court. I seriously doubt that taking steps to secure your machines from anonymous intrusions would fall under that law, as the police aren't going to send you an e-mail identifying themselves along with the trojan.
I don't recklessly cut off anybody when I drive, but maybe that's just my crazy non-H2 driving self...
You may be mistaking "muffled laughter" for "respect"...
I'm sorry, but it's quite clear you do not understand science. To claim that ID and evolution have equivalent amounts of proof supporting them is just nonsensical.
No, I'm quite aware that some people think that ID is a valid theory. The problem is, they're wrong. The "evidence" they base it on consists mainly of a mis-understanding of the idea of "information" (the genetic code is information, which they mistakenly think implies intelligence), and an appeal to credulity in the form of the concept of irreducible complexity. Both are severely flawed, and fail to provide a reasonable foundation for a scientific theory.
As for "Dawkins let the panspermia cat out of the bag", that's just nonsense. Panspermia has been suggested millions of times before, and what he said was nothing new. Theorizing about the implications of a hypothesis doesn't automatically give any credence to the hypothesis in question, despite your assertion. I can say "if unicorns existed, jousting matches in medieval times would have been very different" without admitting "scientific status" re the existence of unicorns.
As Dawkins himself answers here, the entire question at that point was nonsensical. Stein was asking a man who emphatically believes that Intelligent Design is nonsense to construct a scenario in which Intelligent Design might have happened. And as ID proponents so often point out when asked about the religious implications of their position, "they're not necessarily talking about a deity." Well, what does that leave, apart from aliens? The entire exchange in question is basically a believer getting a scientist to describe Intelligent Design's own belief structure, and then crucifying him because he didn't mention God. It's ID that's nonsensical, Dawkins was merely repeating your own words back to you.
What do you mean by "HD" here? Because a number of shows are available on broadcast television in full HD. Hell, we even have the Create channel broadcasting in 1080 in the major markets, and that's basically nothing but cooking shows.
Either way it's nonsense. As long as your TV has a digital receiver, you can pick up 1080 HD broadcasts using a $15 set of rabbit ears. Anybody who paid $50 for a special "high def" pair got royally ripped off.
Nope, I use 8 or 9 extensions, plus Flash, and routinely open 20 or 30 tabs.
Apparently not the same one as you, since Firefox hasn't crashed on me in about 2 years. Neither has IE, for that matter, although it doesn't get used nearly as much.
Your browser crashes? What is this, 1994?
Your sig is evil.
My question is, would you be as likely to buy a game such as that if you knew it would be difficult to resell? I'm guessing that there's a decent portion of the customer base for "new games" whose habit is financed through reselling their old titles.
Bullshit. His information is being looked up because John McCain has made him the centerpiece of his presidential campaign during the 3rd debate and for several weeks after. It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that this represents a reaction from his question to Obama.
There are some decent public schools in this country (I went to one). And almost anywhere you go, there's the opportunity to learn real things. The desire to do so is too often crushed by parents who show disdain for intellectual activity in the home, though, and the children pick up on it and the entire exercise goes downhill from there.
Both countries do indeed have rich and deep histories of democratic values, but the average citizen in either country couldn't tell you the first thing about that history. They can recite who won the last 5 seasons of Survivor, and the last celebrity to pull a Basic Instinct while getting out of a taxi, but ask any real question (do we have a state religion? when was "In God We Trust" added to our money? what is the 4th amendment, and why is it important?) and you're likely to be met with either a blank stare, or some disgustingly ill-informed and incorrect answer.
It's sort of an open question as to WHY this has happened, whether there are people actively trying to promote a strain of proud anti-intellectualism or whether it's just a natural progression, but the end result is that not enough people understand or care about these rights to know and care when they're taken away.
I know a guy who swears that this is the correct way to drive. I know instinctively that it's wrong (I've been driving manual for 12 years, since my first car, he just got his first manual and heard this from his dad or something) but I can't find anything authoritative to reference in describing why it's wrong.
"They develop the engine once, you pay for it 3 times. Sucker."
At least it's not like books, where a successful author learns to read and write once, and you pay for literally dozens of different books. Those are the real suckers.
That's true, although just seeing the quality of people coming out it seems that we've lost some of the good ones along with the "quick buck" crowd.
That was true 3 or 4 years ago. I started undergrad in 2001, and it seemed to me that interest started to drop off steeply in subsequent years as the .com bubble collapsed and people just looking to make a quick buck moved over to biotech. Especially in the last couple years it's seemed like the number of good people looking for work has been dwindling, and fewer competent people are coming out of college.
Shouldn't that be "prophet", rather than "profit"?