You don't have to use your mom's REAL maiden name. The bank won't actually verify it. Just make sure to remember which name you gave them and don't make it too obvious for someone to guess.
It is interesting that the judge basically refused to award attorney fees because the mother used legal delaying tactics that are fairly standard in litigation. Normally delays are in the best interest of the defendant, and I suspect she may have been worse off having let the case proceed quickly.
When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it is a lot easier for the defendant to countersue for attorney fees, which I suspect they will in this case. The award is not automatic, but likely.
Only if you allow it to be that way. First, NEVER sign something without reading it. If you don't understand the agreement and can't get a satisfactory explaination, don't sign. If a company fails to live up to their end of the deal, explore your legal options. That doesn't usually mean hiring an expensive attorney. The business is most likely regulated by multiple local and federal agencies, and threats to file complaints usually result in action being taken. Most businesses scam people who are content to allow themselves to be scammed.
The problem here is the business model that does not allow theaters to make any money on the actual box office receipts. Why should the studio get to keep $10 per person? Consumers are obviously not willing to pay more and will stay away from theaters if things get worse, so the obvious answer is to let theater owners keep some of the ticket price. Studios will predictably be too stupid to allow this to happen and will eventually lose money once they drive theaters out of business. Who would want to start a new theater at this point, with the profit margin being so slim?
I'm just dreading the god-awful commercials that Dell is sure to make when they start promoting this pile of crap. Give it up Dell, you won't win against the iPod!
The visible-light camera part is needed to get a license plate number. Without that, the ticket is worthless since they'll have no idea who to send it to.
Last I heard, Microsoft just filed for a patent on the idea of open source software. Hey, it wouldn't be much more absurd than some of their other recent patents.
This is why I've always thought a modified version of "loser pays" would be best. I think if you file a lawsuit that has some merit but you ultimately lose, you shouldn't have to pay the other side's fees. However, if your suit is dismissed by the judge in summary judgement (ie. the judge finds your case to have no merit), attorney fees should be automatically awarded unless you can convince the judge there are some extenuating circumstances as to why you shouldn't have to pay. It's currently too easy to file a frivolous lawsuit and too difficult for the defendant to collect attorney fees when a case is tossed out. If this process is made easier, it should help strike a balance between discouraging crap lawsuits and not penalizing lawsuits that are well meaning but ultimately unsuccessful.
Also, plantiff lawyers working on contingency should be responsible for the other side's attorney fees when they advise their client to file a baseless lawsuit; this will help cut down on some of the ambulance chasing.
I always thought a config file would be easier to admin than IIS's illogical checkboxes scattered all over the place. What's the point of an admin GUI if I have to hunt through multiple dialog boxes in multiple places just to make one small change? Finally they are getting a clue. Now if they could just do away with the Windows registry...
I think Microsoft has been wanting to buy AOL for a long time but couldn't get around anti-trust regulations. Now that they are only buying part, and since there is competition in this aspect of the market, it will be easier for them to do. But I agree, AOL sucks bad enough already I don't think Microsoft could crappify it much more.
Re:Old Concept Revisited with more schmaltz
on
Review: Nintendogs
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This seems to be the trend in "virtual pets". A certain type becomes very popular for a short period of time, only to be forgotten when the next techno fad comes along. Then, someone takes the exact same concept and reinvents almost the same virtual pet and it becomes very popular again, and the cycle repeats. I myself have never understood the obsession with a fake pet; it just doesn't do anything for me.
This is officially the last gasp of a dying corporation. Even if the commercial features hot nude girls, people are still not going to pay big money for what is otherwise commodity hardware and software.
You just pointed out the reasoning behind all prohibition (alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc.) It's to provide more money and power for those with political connections and provides the side benefit of making politicians look like they are doing something useful. For anyone who wonders why pot is illegal, this is the reason.
This is a very common strategy in many industries, not just IT. Once a company, especially one that just went public, gets big and has something great, kooks come out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy lawsuits. When big money is involved, everyone wants a piece of the pie and they're not always willing to get it the honest way.
If it isn't growing, it's shrinking. That's the historical truth. As old industries become obsolete, new ones must replace them. How many people used to make their living on farms compared to the numbers that do now?
Considering overall unemployment rates and economic performance as a whole, it sounds like the U.S. system wins out. Companies are very reluctant to hire people if it is overly difficult to fire them.
Re:If you want decent scientific articles..
on
Bad Science in the Press
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Exactly. Mainstream journalism, by design, was never meant to be a reliable source for scientific information. It was meant to inform the masses by creating excitement which generates interest and therefore sells papers. Science isn't always interesting to the masses.
Another problem with mainstream journalism, and some pseudo-scientific publications may fall victim to this as well, is puff pieces that are written by PR firms. Much of what you read in the mainstream news, especially in the "Lifestyles" section, is not really news in the traditional sense, but a subtle advertisement provided to the newspaper via wire service written by an industry PR group. Reporters are sometimes lazy about checking sources and will just regurgitate the puff piece or use the article straight from the wire as opposed to doing real investigative reporting. This problem combined with the technical nature of scientific news makes it especially easy for industries with agendas to buy press from a PR firm and have the material end up in the newspaper.
That's government purchasing for you. Research is not part of the process. In governments that are completely corrupt, purchase decisions are purely political. In more "honest" governments, the purchasing process is a convoluted bidding system which oftentimes results in their paying a high price for something that just barely resembles the original spec. The scenario described in the article sounds quite mild in comparison with similar stories I've heard.
Calling it a service charge instead of interest may get around religious technicalities, but it doesn't make the loan free. Bottom line is, nobody is going to take the risk of loaning you money without getting something in return. While I agree that cheap loans in recent years have driven up real estate prices, it's not like you could buy a nice house for a couple grand if it weren't for loans. Before the average person could borrow money, the average person rented. Cheap credit helped create the middle class, allowing the average person to own a decent home.
When you move out of your parents' house, you will see how loans benefit you and the economy as a whole. Most likely you won't have several hundred grand in cash available to buy a house, so you'll have to borrow. If loans weren't available, we would all be living in $30,000 tar-paper shacks. How many businesses get started and expand with no loans? I'd say loans stimulate the economy more than any other single activity. Why do you have to pay interest? Because you're using someone else's money. Would you let me use your money and take the chance that I don't pay you back all for free?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to use your mom's REAL maiden name. The bank won't actually verify it. Just make sure to remember which name you gave them and don't make it too obvious for someone to guess.
It is interesting that the judge basically refused to award attorney fees because the mother used legal delaying tactics that are fairly standard in litigation. Normally delays are in the best interest of the defendant, and I suspect she may have been worse off having let the case proceed quickly.
When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it is a lot easier for the defendant to countersue for attorney fees, which I suspect they will in this case. The award is not automatic, but likely.
Only if you allow it to be that way. First, NEVER sign something without reading it. If you don't understand the agreement and can't get a satisfactory explaination, don't sign. If a company fails to live up to their end of the deal, explore your legal options. That doesn't usually mean hiring an expensive attorney. The business is most likely regulated by multiple local and federal agencies, and threats to file complaints usually result in action being taken. Most businesses scam people who are content to allow themselves to be scammed.
The problem here is the business model that does not allow theaters to make any money on the actual box office receipts. Why should the studio get to keep $10 per person? Consumers are obviously not willing to pay more and will stay away from theaters if things get worse, so the obvious answer is to let theater owners keep some of the ticket price. Studios will predictably be too stupid to allow this to happen and will eventually lose money once they drive theaters out of business. Who would want to start a new theater at this point, with the profit margin being so slim?
I'm just dreading the god-awful commercials that Dell is sure to make when they start promoting this pile of crap. Give it up Dell, you won't win against the iPod!
Marxist hacker? You sound more like Pat Buchanan.
The visible-light camera part is needed to get a license plate number. Without that, the ticket is worthless since they'll have no idea who to send it to.
I can't ever recall being in an elevator that actually played music. Do they still exist?
Last I heard, Microsoft just filed for a patent on the idea of open source software. Hey, it wouldn't be much more absurd than some of their other recent patents.
This is why I've always thought a modified version of "loser pays" would be best. I think if you file a lawsuit that has some merit but you ultimately lose, you shouldn't have to pay the other side's fees. However, if your suit is dismissed by the judge in summary judgement (ie. the judge finds your case to have no merit), attorney fees should be automatically awarded unless you can convince the judge there are some extenuating circumstances as to why you shouldn't have to pay. It's currently too easy to file a frivolous lawsuit and too difficult for the defendant to collect attorney fees when a case is tossed out. If this process is made easier, it should help strike a balance between discouraging crap lawsuits and not penalizing lawsuits that are well meaning but ultimately unsuccessful.
Also, plantiff lawyers working on contingency should be responsible for the other side's attorney fees when they advise their client to file a baseless lawsuit; this will help cut down on some of the ambulance chasing.
I always thought a config file would be easier to admin than IIS's illogical checkboxes scattered all over the place. What's the point of an admin GUI if I have to hunt through multiple dialog boxes in multiple places just to make one small change? Finally they are getting a clue. Now if they could just do away with the Windows registry...
I think Microsoft has been wanting to buy AOL for a long time but couldn't get around anti-trust regulations. Now that they are only buying part, and since there is competition in this aspect of the market, it will be easier for them to do. But I agree, AOL sucks bad enough already I don't think Microsoft could crappify it much more.
This seems to be the trend in "virtual pets". A certain type becomes very popular for a short period of time, only to be forgotten when the next techno fad comes along. Then, someone takes the exact same concept and reinvents almost the same virtual pet and it becomes very popular again, and the cycle repeats. I myself have never understood the obsession with a fake pet; it just doesn't do anything for me.
This is officially the last gasp of a dying corporation. Even if the commercial features hot nude girls, people are still not going to pay big money for what is otherwise commodity hardware and software.
A paid press release for free software? What the hell would they have to gain from that?
You just pointed out the reasoning behind all prohibition (alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc.) It's to provide more money and power for those with political connections and provides the side benefit of making politicians look like they are doing something useful. For anyone who wonders why pot is illegal, this is the reason.
I'm afraid someone already beat you to this scam.
This is a very common strategy in many industries, not just IT. Once a company, especially one that just went public, gets big and has something great, kooks come out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy lawsuits. When big money is involved, everyone wants a piece of the pie and they're not always willing to get it the honest way.
If it isn't growing, it's shrinking. That's the historical truth. As old industries become obsolete, new ones must replace them. How many people used to make their living on farms compared to the numbers that do now?
Considering overall unemployment rates and economic performance as a whole, it sounds like the U.S. system wins out. Companies are very reluctant to hire people if it is overly difficult to fire them.
Exactly. Mainstream journalism, by design, was never meant to be a reliable source for scientific information. It was meant to inform the masses by creating excitement which generates interest and therefore sells papers. Science isn't always interesting to the masses.
Another problem with mainstream journalism, and some pseudo-scientific publications may fall victim to this as well, is puff pieces that are written by PR firms. Much of what you read in the mainstream news, especially in the "Lifestyles" section, is not really news in the traditional sense, but a subtle advertisement provided to the newspaper via wire service written by an industry PR group. Reporters are sometimes lazy about checking sources and will just regurgitate the puff piece or use the article straight from the wire as opposed to doing real investigative reporting. This problem combined with the technical nature of scientific news makes it especially easy for industries with agendas to buy press from a PR firm and have the material end up in the newspaper.
That's government purchasing for you. Research is not part of the process. In governments that are completely corrupt, purchase decisions are purely political. In more "honest" governments, the purchasing process is a convoluted bidding system which oftentimes results in their paying a high price for something that just barely resembles the original spec. The scenario described in the article sounds quite mild in comparison with similar stories I've heard.
Calling it a service charge instead of interest may get around religious technicalities, but it doesn't make the loan free. Bottom line is, nobody is going to take the risk of loaning you money without getting something in return. While I agree that cheap loans in recent years have driven up real estate prices, it's not like you could buy a nice house for a couple grand if it weren't for loans. Before the average person could borrow money, the average person rented. Cheap credit helped create the middle class, allowing the average person to own a decent home.
When you move out of your parents' house, you will see how loans benefit you and the economy as a whole. Most likely you won't have several hundred grand in cash available to buy a house, so you'll have to borrow. If loans weren't available, we would all be living in $30,000 tar-paper shacks. How many businesses get started and expand with no loans? I'd say loans stimulate the economy more than any other single activity. Why do you have to pay interest? Because you're using someone else's money. Would you let me use your money and take the chance that I don't pay you back all for free?