There's some unemployed person out there who thinks your $25K/yr income is good -- and that you should be paying federal income tax on your riches. And their belief would be just as valid as the belief that someone who makes $100K/yr should be paying federal income taxes but that you shouldn't.
The current Republican party disconnect with Ron Paul is a clear example, he has a lot of grassroots support, yet very little national coverage and what he does get is artfully spun negative propaganda, whereas their globalist darlings like giuliani and now fred thompson get the bulk of the positive press.
An alternative explanation to the differing amount of coverage is more likely to have something to do with how well known Giuliani and Thompson are. For every person who knows who Ron Paul is and would recognize his face, there are probably 1000 who could do the same for Giuliani and over 100 who would look at a picture of Thompson and say something like "hey - I know that guy, doesn't he play X on Y" (where one or both of X or Y are probably wrong!). I suspect the lack of national name/face recognition for Ron Paul has far more to do with his level of coverage than some dark plot. This may not be ideal, but Ron Paul also has failed to do things that get him in the national mindset and that's one thing that is helpful (esp. early in the campaign) when running for President.
(BTW, I like Ron Paul's positions on most issues as he seems like a closet libertarian - but I think he is responsible for getting the necessary coverage, not that the media needs to cover candidates that don't sell page clicks because they are unknown. I also think it quite unlikely that Paul could be elected President unless the Democrats nominate a left wingnut. I suspect the Republican party elite, even if they weren't "big business" oriented, is much more interested in winning the general election with a pragmatic selection than losing it while standing tall on principle.)
even if your [sic] 80 and have a million bucks you can score a hot chick Yes - but if all you have is a million dollars, all you can get reliably is a rather short term lease on a hot chick (assuming, of course, that we are not talking about scoring a wayward tenant of an aviary in warm climate - that's just too kinky even for/.). At the end of the lease, you're likely worse off than the ex-pool boy (you're both broke, you're both senile, but the ex-pool boy probably has a better chance at attracting something in the trailer park because he's pretty experienced at it).
However, if your genetics and lifestyle suggest that you will probably only live to 81, the risk adjusted ROI of the short term lease might make it worthwhile - and it might not be a bad way to go even if you die of a heart attack a couple days before the lease expires.
Bad politicians make the people worse (destroy public education, for example)
The teachers' unions have done a fine job with destroying public eduction in some areas - they probably didn't even need the politicians to help.
school lunches are often sponsored by corporations like Hershey's, and Pepsi. The food these companies give leaves very little in the way of actual nutrition. But other programs that involve freshly prepared, locally grown foods cost the same and take the same time to prepare. Except... you guessed it.
As I didn't see Super Size Me, I don't know the circumstances or accuracy of the situation described.
However, consider the plight of a school administrator given the choice of procuring supplies from a large supplier who is well insured, has sophisticated testing labs, can deliver a reliably consistent product and meet delivery commitments reliably vs. a local supplier with limited insurance, limited ability to test their product, vulnerability to local supply and weather conditions, and possibly just weak financial condition. The large supplier probably makes a lot more sense.
Imagine, for example, that a bunch of kids get sick, and a few die, and it's just SUSPECTED that it was a problem with the food in the school cafeteria. The large supplier will likely expend the resources to disprove (therefore protecting the decision maker) that they were not responsible or, if it turns out they were responsible, their insurance will kick in and be the "deep pockets" in the subsequent lawsuits (again protecting the decision maker). The small supplier, on the other hand, is likely to be unable to respond anywhere nearly as aggressively (and, if they tried, the cost of doing so even though it WASN'T their product that caused the problem, could bankrupt them) - which leaves the school district much more vulnerable. If the district gets sued for a situation such as I describe, a jury is likely to be a lot more sympathetic to the administrator/school district who chooses to buy products from known suppliers that supply millions of people with food every day and has hundreds of products on the local supermarkets' shelves than to one that chooses to buy from "Fred's Organic Farm Products" who grows products on his farm between the river and the smelly pig farm everyone hates. (Esp. when it turns out that Fred is a second cousin to a school board member who approved the contract with Fred - even though this relationship really had nothing to do with the decision).
It may suck, but the litigious, risk adverse, society in which we live encourages the "safe" decision in cases like this. It's like the saying from 30 years ago: "No one ever lost their job by buying IBM".
Yep - but it's $100/month regardless of the cost of the house due to regional variations (well, perhaps effectively less to the owner of the $150k home due to the mortgage deduction issue in my post above). I stated no opinion on if this particular $15K investment had a better risk adjusted ROI than an available alternative investment (I've not researched this so have no opinion on this point).
BTW, in the high price area, it's likely to cost more to install the system (due to labor costs and increased contractor overhead costs) than in a low cost area which could make it less attractive for the $1.5M home - although it's possible that this particular upgrade may have more qualified installation contractors in high cost areas than lower cost areas resulting in more efficient installs and/or more competition which could offset the other increased costs.
15K added upfront to the cost of a California home if virtually nothing.
Huh? It's $15K whether the house is $150K or $1.5M. Indeed, due to the the limit on mortgage interest deduction for Federal tax purposes ($1M?), the purchaser of the $150K home would likely get an additional tax break on the $15K solar energy equipment cost which the $1.5M homeowner might well lose out on.
Is a $15K home theater system any cheaper for someone with a $1.5M house than a $150K house? It's about ROI in both cases and the solar equation is no different.
Pollution from fossil fuel fired power plants causes thousands of deaths in Canada per year, primarily of the elderly, who have to be hospitalized for lengthy periods of time due to respiratory problems.
I've got no first hand knowledge of the evidence for this claim so will accept it at face value that the pollution causes these deaths (such claims sometimes turn out to be hard to verify - which isn't to say they are wrong, just that cause and effect can be difficult to ascertain in many such cases).
However, everyone dies eventually and, with government health care and pensions, the government (aka, the taxpayers) usually end up paying for medical care associated with that death AND pensions and other services until that death.
So, crass as it may seem, pollution may be SAVING the taxpayers' money. It depends on how much longer each of these people who died prematurely would have lived and what the health care cost of their eventual demise (stroke w/coma, cardiovascular disease, cancer) would have been. In the meantime, they would have consumed pensions and routine health care resources (and, since they are "primarily elderly", I assume that they are generally not employed and not paying into the system at a rate that exceeds their consumption) for longer. So, that pollution may be a bargain.
If a small AllegedOwner loses, it's probably out of business - tough. Being small shouldn't, IMHO, give one the right to harrass big companies with invalid patent claims hoping for "cost of defense" sized out-of-court settlements (yes, this does happen - but since the cases never get to court, they don't get much publicity). If AllegedOwner wins, they would still get an award for past infringement and an injunction barring future use of the patent w/o a license by the other party.
In the U.S. I don't think it's common for the prevailing party to be awarded their defense costs except for frivolous cases -- but INAL so will defer to others on this. Probably this should also be changed.
Agreed, that once the courts have invalidated a patent, it should go away - again, INAL so don't know what really happens (if the opinion is not published, I suppose the patent could effectively stand as there's no case to cite as precedence?).
There needs to be counterbalance (esp. for the little guys who are sued for infringement by the big guys - which probably isn't quite the case here).
If AllegedOwner sues InnocentCompany for infringement of a patent on LameIdea and the patent is declared invalid in the process, there should be some cost the AllegedOwner should pay. Perhaps in such a case, AllegedOwner (and all entities with a common parent and any subsequent spinoffs, etc) must pay InnocentUser all profits (perhaps revenue even) ever gained from LameIdea and lose the right to ever use LameIdea without buying a license from InnocentCompany (on terms suitable to InnocentCompany or assignee). Note that this pretty much just makes AllegedOwner subject to just what InnocentCompany would have been subject to if the patent were ruled valid. All other players of course would get to use the LameIdea w/o charge (as there's no patent on it anymore).
After all, AllegedOwner was very sure it was a valid, good patent (and, with this provision, might actually *believe* this before suing). This would also be a great way for the little guy to be able to find competent legal representation when sued for patent infringement (after all, the alleged infringer really wasn't expecting a patent license fee so would probably be willing to assign all such rights to a group of lawyers).
Check the official "election website", punch in the unique ID from the CD/paper coppy and verify that it's registered correctly.
One minor nit... This is a bad idea because it makes buying and selling votes more reliable. With a scheme like this, the vote-buyer can verify that the vote-seller really followed instructions before payment is made. As it is now, vote-buying is unreliable (at the retail level) because the buyer can't tell if they got what they paid for.
But, overall there are plenty of good solutions to the problem of voting machines - any of the thousands would do, but closed source is a component of none of them!
If neither of the employees having sex on a desk had been warned by IBM for similar previous violations, the cases may be quite distinct on that fact alone.
if you count my mortgage as debt (the bank still owns the house), then I'm very far in debt--to the tune of $120k or so
Unless your house declined in value after the last time you took out a loan on it (possible, but in most areas unlikely if the last loan you took out using the property as collateral was more than a couple years ago), it's fairly likely that your home's value exceeds the loan - giving you a net asset. The bank doesn't (probably) own your home - you do, the bank just can have it sold to cover your mortgage debt (and, have to give you the balance - although if one has a positive balance, a foreclosure sale is probably not the smartest way to derive maximum value for yourself from the house).
Of course if you bought in the last year with a 100% loan, it might be a couple years before you have equity.
Since you subscribe to "slippery slope" theories, let's look at the slippery slope the other direction... I'll help by updating the first couple of paragraphs of your post if there were no death sentence and the most serious penalty possible was life in prison.
Of course not - but nor is imprisoning him for life. Saddam's victims are dead, dead, dead, and nothing is going to bring them back. Merely performing 40 hours of community service won't help. But nor will imprisoning him for life.
We're on a slippery slope here. Plenty of people think that community service is too good for him, so he should be imprisoned for life. Well, great. But why stop there? Surely a nice prison cell for life is too good for such a monster too, so maybe he should be given a less comfortable cell, like without a feather pillow? Or maybe he should be required to clean his OWN cell? Or deprive him of cable TV? I mean, he's a monster, right? We must make his punishment as painful as possible, to discourage other monsters! Life imprisonment is too good for him!
Saddam will be receiving a humane punishment by his own standards - many (perhaps most) who died in his prisons under his control would have begged for such a death (or, even a trial). It really seems quite fair to me to impose a punishment on someone that is less severe than that that that person imposed on others guilty of lesser crimes.
The most serious available punishment will always be judged as "too cruel" or "too severe" by a portion of the population and simply lowering the severity of this punishment to prevent offending anyone will do little to change this except that the worst criminals will pay a much lower price for their crimes and lesser criminals will receive almost no punishment (read "disincentive") as all meaningful punishments are reserved for the "worst of the worst".
Technically once the vehicle is totaled it becomes property of the insurance company
But it's not the insurance company's property until you agree that it is. You don't have to accept the insurance company's money if you really want to keep the black box. In fact, you could probably get away with prying the black box out before signing the car over to the insurance company - I'd bet that most of the time no one would notice.
...to the point that you had to mortgage your house, you don't have enough left to take on the auto manufacturer in the court... Therefore, your patent is completely useless...
You could still sell the rights to your patent to a third party. One possible customer would be another auto manufacturer who wants exclusive ownership of the technology and is willing/able to take on the legal costs to defend it. Another possible customer is a group of lawyers who specialize in these things. No, neither may be as profitable as manufacturing the engine (and the surrounding car) using the patent -- but nor do you have to risk your capital in building another car company just to exploit your patent. The current system sucks, but to say a patent is "useless" just because the inventor can't afford to develop and defend it is an overstatement.
Note that the referenced table shows Washington D.C. as having nearly twice the violent crime rate as South Carolina - which is the highest (i.e., "worst") ranked state (D.C. presumably wasn't eligible for a "rank" due to it not being a state). Washington D.C. of course has among the strictest gun control laws in the nation, having received a "B" grade based on a Brady Campaign linked site (interestingly, the only significant low grade for D.C. is based on the fact that Congress could repeal D.C.'s gun control laws - but since this has not happened, it seems that the "B" grade should probably be an "A" as this theoretical fear applies to almost all laws at the state/local level).
Conversely, North Dakota which is shown as having the lowest violent crime rate has fairly lax gun control laws (North Dakota got a "D" grade by the Brady campaign).
Of course, none of the referenced data allows one to determine a cause/effect relationship.
The "non-compete" agreement usually indicates that you can't go to work for a competitor or steal a bunch of company talent and start your own competitor.
FWIW, in California, most non-compete clauses are difficult to enforce. Generally, a clause that prevents you from working for a competitor is invalid. Clauses that prevent you from stealing employees seem to be more enforceable (as they don't interfere with your ability to earn a living).
Nevertheless, it's cheapest just to get the unenforceable clauses excised BEFORE you sign (when you have more leverage). This process can add a couple weeks to the negotiation process but it's the company lawyers that are getting paid - you don't need one. I've never had a problem getting these clauses excised. After you leave, these clauses can cost you a little money in attorney fees to get them declared unenforceable.
(Getting these excised also makes it clear to the CEO very early on that you're not willing to put up with crap - as the ad says, this is "priceless")
Yeah, unfortunately, it does. I'm pretty libretarian in my views, but the American people as a whole care not for things like the environment. They want their SUVs. So, in order to get better fuel economy, one of two things must happen.
Let the market work w/o govt interference if you're "pretty libretarian[sic]"!
Eventually, we (the world) will use up all the accessible petroleum reserves. Yes, all that CO2 will end up in the environment. Normal market forces will cause fuel prices to go up and the demand for gas guzzlers will decline (it already is declining - if you own a recent model year SUV, better sell it now before its Blue Book value is equal to its scrap value). The world will transition to other power sources when they make economic sense because depleting petroleum reserves have driven the supply down.
Taxing the poor and middle class in the U.S. in order to preserve oil for China and India's growth doesn't sound like a very smart strategy - effectively it's a transfer of U.S. taxpayer dollars to other countries. Remember that if you (the generic/collective "you") are forced to pay an additional $500/year in fuel taxes even after you reduce your consumption by buying a new fuel efficient car for which you pay another $1000/year in car payments, you need an additional $2000/year (or more) in salary just to break even after income taxes. However, Sanjit reporting for work in Bangalore (who, coincidentally, was hired by your employer the day after you were laid off and is doing the same work you were doing - curious) can work cheaper - in part because he doesn't pay U.S. fuel taxes AND in part because he pays less for fuel because you (when you were employed) were so kind as to pay big $ to save some cheap fuel for him to buy to get to work.
OTOH, the U.S. taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize oil either (as in military action to "stabilize" (yeah, right) a "critical part" of the world economy).
Lord knows, they are probably incestuous and recursive and using reiserfs - who knows what fsck would uncover as it ran across the files intended to be mounted via loopbacks... That would truly be a CF.
A friend of mine who is a doctor gave me some great advice about all the "free professional advice moochers:"
Intrusive Acquaintance: Say, I have this pain in my leg and some blood in my stool...
Target of Instrusion: That sounds serious...you should see your doctor about that...
I always liked the story about the ophthalmologist who had a problem with people coming up to him at cocktail parties for advice about "I have this... What do you think?". His response was to peer intently at their eye(s) for a few moments and then declare "If I were you, I'd have that eye removed". Apparently no one followed his advice nor asked him for advice again.
This is why I normally suggest using the recovery disk and point out that they will then have to restore their email, bookmarks, address books and the like from thier weekly backups (yeh, right). I've found that I rarely get a third call (the second call does come in though - Q:"Where is my email?" A:"Just as I warned you -- Gone, gone, gone as if they had been shredded in crosscut shredder, burned, and the ashes dumped out of a 737 at cruise altitude during a rainstorm.")
hiding the true costs of roads by using general tax funds.
Assuming that it is true that more general tax funds in the US go for roads (building?, maintenance?, etc.) than is gathered in direct and indirect taxes on fuel... Using this logic, general tax funds spent for sidewalks and hiking trails would also be a subsidy to farmers who grow food that people eat to provide enough energy for them to walk. And to think that not only is there no "Federal Food Tax" but food is actually exempt from sale tax in at least some some states -- we must do something about these shameful subsidies.
WRT rent... I live in a large apartment complex owned by one of the largest multifamily dwelling unit REITs in the US. The office staff and managers (who change about every 18 months) are incredibly careless - for example, they screwed up my balance once to the tune of about 15 dollars and it took me four visits to the office, one meeting with the on-site manager, three interactions with corporate "customer service", and three phone discussions with the regional VP to actually get this sorted out (even though during the first contact and all subsequent contacts, they acknowledged it was their error).
Needless to say, I don't trust them with access to my bank account to "pull" money since a misplaced decimal point could create a messy problem for me to sort out. Another option is to 'push' money to them via bill-pay, but I can't trust them to notify me if their account number (at a bank other than mine) changes or some similar event causes the transfer to fail and my first indication that this happened being a 'three day notice to pay rent or quit' on my door (which, since I'm often out of town, I might not see for a week or more).
So, the only real option I have is to pay "in person" at the office and get a signed, numbered, paper receipt at the time of the transaction - and the only form of payment they will accept in the office is a check. Once I have the receipt (which also includes my check # and I also keep a scan of the check), no matter how badly they screw up, they end up paying whatever it costs me to fix it (except for my time, but that's why one uses a lawyer for such things and takes then advantage of the "loser pays legal expenses" clause in the lease - this clause cuts both ways!). So, I write 12 checks a year...
(Hint to those who accept the "your canceled check is your receipt" line - if they misplace your check, you're wedged since it never gets cashed and you never get your 'receipt'! At least in California, you have a legal right to a receipt at the time you provide payment - exercise that right.)
I too have been tempted on several occasions to go stop using FF due to the memory leaks and excessive sporadic CPU usage. Yep, it's probably the extensions, but FF w/o extensions is like a hug without a kiss when you're looking for a bit more than just a kiss [note to self - consider submitting preceding analogy to annual/. bad analogy contest].
The relatively recent addition of the annoying "A script on this page is running slowly and driving you nuts. Nope, I'm not going to tell you which one, but would you like to continue or cancel it?" dialog was a pretty sad admission of surrender (I get it almost every time I "open in tabs" from my bookmark toolbar with my "important" eight web sites). Upon getting this dialog, I went poking around looking for the "what constitutes too slow" (or whatever the term they use is) in order to make it less picky (or disable it entirely), but found no knobs to turn in the obvious places (tools->options) before I gave up looking in disgust (yep, there may be a setting for it in about:config, but I was too disgusted to search for it).
I'd be really happy if FF would show me how much memory (current & peak) and how much CPU time each extension had "used" so I could decide which of my 25 extensions to nuke. Maybe this is technically difficult to do, but at this point FF has enough features to make spending time on usability issues appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
There's some unemployed person out there who thinks your $25K/yr income is good -- and that you should be paying federal income tax on your riches. And their belief would be just as valid as the belief that someone who makes $100K/yr should be paying federal income taxes but that you shouldn't.
An alternative explanation to the differing amount of coverage is more likely to have something to do with how well known Giuliani and Thompson are. For every person who knows who Ron Paul is and would recognize his face, there are probably 1000 who could do the same for Giuliani and over 100 who would look at a picture of Thompson and say something like "hey - I know that guy, doesn't he play X on Y" (where one or both of X or Y are probably wrong!). I suspect the lack of national name/face recognition for Ron Paul has far more to do with his level of coverage than some dark plot. This may not be ideal, but Ron Paul also has failed to do things that get him in the national mindset and that's one thing that is helpful (esp. early in the campaign) when running for President.
(BTW, I like Ron Paul's positions on most issues as he seems like a closet libertarian - but I think he is responsible for getting the necessary coverage, not that the media needs to cover candidates that don't sell page clicks because they are unknown. I also think it quite unlikely that Paul could be elected President unless the Democrats nominate a left wingnut. I suspect the Republican party elite, even if they weren't "big business" oriented, is much more interested in winning the general election with a pragmatic selection than losing it while standing tall on principle.)
However, if your genetics and lifestyle suggest that you will probably only live to 81, the risk adjusted ROI of the short term lease might make it worthwhile - and it might not be a bad way to go even if you die of a heart attack a couple days before the lease expires.
The teachers' unions have done a fine job with destroying public eduction in some areas - they probably didn't even need the politicians to help.
school lunches are often sponsored by corporations like Hershey's, and Pepsi. The food these companies give leaves very little in the way of actual nutrition. But other programs that involve freshly prepared, locally grown foods cost the same and take the same time to prepare. Except... you guessed it.As I didn't see Super Size Me, I don't know the circumstances or accuracy of the situation described.
However, consider the plight of a school administrator given the choice of procuring supplies from a large supplier who is well insured, has sophisticated testing labs, can deliver a reliably consistent product and meet delivery commitments reliably vs. a local supplier with limited insurance, limited ability to test their product, vulnerability to local supply and weather conditions, and possibly just weak financial condition. The large supplier probably makes a lot more sense.
Imagine, for example, that a bunch of kids get sick, and a few die, and it's just SUSPECTED that it was a problem with the food in the school cafeteria. The large supplier will likely expend the resources to disprove (therefore protecting the decision maker) that they were not responsible or, if it turns out they were responsible, their insurance will kick in and be the "deep pockets" in the subsequent lawsuits (again protecting the decision maker). The small supplier, on the other hand, is likely to be unable to respond anywhere nearly as aggressively (and, if they tried, the cost of doing so even though it WASN'T their product that caused the problem, could bankrupt them) - which leaves the school district much more vulnerable. If the district gets sued for a situation such as I describe, a jury is likely to be a lot more sympathetic to the administrator/school district who chooses to buy products from known suppliers that supply millions of people with food every day and has hundreds of products on the local supermarkets' shelves than to one that chooses to buy from "Fred's Organic Farm Products" who grows products on his farm between the river and the smelly pig farm everyone hates. (Esp. when it turns out that Fred is a second cousin to a school board member who approved the contract with Fred - even though this relationship really had nothing to do with the decision).
It may suck, but the litigious, risk adverse, society in which we live encourages the "safe" decision in cases like this. It's like the saying from 30 years ago: "No one ever lost their job by buying IBM".
BTW, in the high price area, it's likely to cost more to install the system (due to labor costs and increased contractor overhead costs) than in a low cost area which could make it less attractive for the $1.5M home - although it's possible that this particular upgrade may have more qualified installation contractors in high cost areas than lower cost areas resulting in more efficient installs and/or more competition which could offset the other increased costs.
Huh? It's $15K whether the house is $150K or $1.5M. Indeed, due to the the limit on mortgage interest deduction for Federal tax purposes ($1M?), the purchaser of the $150K home would likely get an additional tax break on the $15K solar energy equipment cost which the $1.5M homeowner might well lose out on.
Is a $15K home theater system any cheaper for someone with a $1.5M house than a $150K house? It's about ROI in both cases and the solar equation is no different.
Pollution from fossil fuel fired power plants causes thousands of deaths in Canada per year, primarily of the elderly, who have to be hospitalized for lengthy periods of time due to respiratory problems.
I've got no first hand knowledge of the evidence for this claim so will accept it at face value that the pollution causes these deaths (such claims sometimes turn out to be hard to verify - which isn't to say they are wrong, just that cause and effect can be difficult to ascertain in many such cases).
However, everyone dies eventually and, with government health care and pensions, the government (aka, the taxpayers) usually end up paying for medical care associated with that death AND pensions and other services until that death.
So, crass as it may seem, pollution may be SAVING the taxpayers' money. It depends on how much longer each of these people who died prematurely would have lived and what the health care cost of their eventual demise (stroke w/coma, cardiovascular disease, cancer) would have been. In the meantime, they would have consumed pensions and routine health care resources (and, since they are "primarily elderly", I assume that they are generally not employed and not paying into the system at a rate that exceeds their consumption) for longer. So, that pollution may be a bargain.
If a small AllegedOwner loses, it's probably out of business - tough. Being small shouldn't, IMHO, give one the right to harrass big companies with invalid patent claims hoping for "cost of defense" sized out-of-court settlements (yes, this does happen - but since the cases never get to court, they don't get much publicity). If AllegedOwner wins, they would still get an award for past infringement and an injunction barring future use of the patent w/o a license by the other party.
In the U.S. I don't think it's common for the prevailing party to be awarded their defense costs except for frivolous cases -- but INAL so will defer to others on this. Probably this should also be changed.
Agreed, that once the courts have invalidated a patent, it should go away - again, INAL so don't know what really happens (if the opinion is not published, I suppose the patent could effectively stand as there's no case to cite as precedence?).
There needs to be counterbalance (esp. for the little guys who are sued for infringement by the big guys - which probably isn't quite the case here).
If AllegedOwner sues InnocentCompany for infringement of a patent on LameIdea and the patent is declared invalid in the process, there should be some cost the AllegedOwner should pay. Perhaps in such a case, AllegedOwner (and all entities with a common parent and any subsequent spinoffs, etc) must pay InnocentUser all profits (perhaps revenue even) ever gained from LameIdea and lose the right to ever use LameIdea without buying a license from InnocentCompany (on terms suitable to InnocentCompany or assignee). Note that this pretty much just makes AllegedOwner subject to just what InnocentCompany would have been subject to if the patent were ruled valid. All other players of course would get to use the LameIdea w/o charge (as there's no patent on it anymore).
After all, AllegedOwner was very sure it was a valid, good patent (and, with this provision, might actually *believe* this before suing). This would also be a great way for the little guy to be able to find competent legal representation when sued for patent infringement (after all, the alleged infringer really wasn't expecting a patent license fee so would probably be willing to assign all such rights to a group of lawyers).
Check the official "election website", punch in the unique ID from the CD/paper coppy and verify that it's registered correctly.
One minor nit... This is a bad idea because it makes buying and selling votes more reliable. With a scheme like this, the vote-buyer can verify that the vote-seller really followed instructions before payment is made. As it is now, vote-buying is unreliable (at the retail level) because the buyer can't tell if they got what they paid for.
But, overall there are plenty of good solutions to the problem of voting machines - any of the thousands would do, but closed source is a component of none of them!
If neither of the employees having sex on a desk had been warned by IBM for similar previous violations, the cases may be quite distinct on that fact alone.
Amen
Of course if you bought in the last year with a 100% loan, it might be a couple years before you have equity.
Since you subscribe to "slippery slope" theories, let's look at the slippery slope the other direction... I'll help by updating the first couple of paragraphs of your post if there were no death sentence and the most serious penalty possible was life in prison.
Of course not - but nor is imprisoning him for life. Saddam's victims are dead, dead, dead, and nothing is going to bring them back. Merely performing 40 hours of community service won't help. But nor will imprisoning him for life.
We're on a slippery slope here. Plenty of people think that community service is too good for him, so he should be imprisoned for life. Well, great. But why stop there? Surely a nice prison cell for life is too good for such a monster too, so maybe he should be given a less comfortable cell, like without a feather pillow? Or maybe he should be required to clean his OWN cell? Or deprive him of cable TV? I mean, he's a monster, right? We must make his punishment as painful as possible, to discourage other monsters! Life imprisonment is too good for him!
Saddam will be receiving a humane punishment by his own standards - many (perhaps most) who died in his prisons under his control would have begged for such a death (or, even a trial). It really seems quite fair to me to impose a punishment on someone that is less severe than that that that person imposed on others guilty of lesser crimes.
The most serious available punishment will always be judged as "too cruel" or "too severe" by a portion of the population and simply lowering the severity of this punishment to prevent offending anyone will do little to change this except that the worst criminals will pay a much lower price for their crimes and lesser criminals will receive almost no punishment (read "disincentive") as all meaningful punishments are reserved for the "worst of the worst".
But it's not the insurance company's property until you agree that it is. You don't have to accept the insurance company's money if you really want to keep the black box. In fact, you could probably get away with prying the black box out before signing the car over to the insurance company - I'd bet that most of the time no one would notice.
You could still sell the rights to your patent to a third party. One possible customer would be another auto manufacturer who wants exclusive ownership of the technology and is willing/able to take on the legal costs to defend it. Another possible customer is a group of lawyers who specialize in these things. No, neither may be as profitable as manufacturing the engine (and the surrounding car) using the patent -- but nor do you have to risk your capital in building another car company just to exploit your patent. The current system sucks, but to say a patent is "useless" just because the inventor can't afford to develop and defend it is an overstatement.
Conversely, North Dakota which is shown as having the lowest violent crime rate has fairly lax gun control laws (North Dakota got a "D" grade by the Brady campaign).
Of course, none of the referenced data allows one to determine a cause/effect relationship.
FWIW, in California, most non-compete clauses are difficult to enforce. Generally, a clause that prevents you from working for a competitor is invalid. Clauses that prevent you from stealing employees seem to be more enforceable (as they don't interfere with your ability to earn a living).
Nevertheless, it's cheapest just to get the unenforceable clauses excised BEFORE you sign (when you have more leverage). This process can add a couple weeks to the negotiation process but it's the company lawyers that are getting paid - you don't need one. I've never had a problem getting these clauses excised. After you leave, these clauses can cost you a little money in attorney fees to get them declared unenforceable.
(Getting these excised also makes it clear to the CEO very early on that you're not willing to put up with crap - as the ad says, this is "priceless")
Let the market work w/o govt interference if you're "pretty libretarian[sic]"!
Eventually, we (the world) will use up all the accessible petroleum reserves. Yes, all that CO2 will end up in the environment. Normal market forces will cause fuel prices to go up and the demand for gas guzzlers will decline (it already is declining - if you own a recent model year SUV, better sell it now before its Blue Book value is equal to its scrap value). The world will transition to other power sources when they make economic sense because depleting petroleum reserves have driven the supply down.
Taxing the poor and middle class in the U.S. in order to preserve oil for China and India's growth doesn't sound like a very smart strategy - effectively it's a transfer of U.S. taxpayer dollars to other countries. Remember that if you (the generic/collective "you") are forced to pay an additional $500/year in fuel taxes even after you reduce your consumption by buying a new fuel efficient car for which you pay another $1000/year in car payments, you need an additional $2000/year (or more) in salary just to break even after income taxes. However, Sanjit reporting for work in Bangalore (who, coincidentally, was hired by your employer the day after you were laid off and is doing the same work you were doing - curious) can work cheaper - in part because he doesn't pay U.S. fuel taxes AND in part because he pays less for fuel because you (when you were employed) were so kind as to pay big $ to save some cheap fuel for him to buy to get to work.
OTOH, the U.S. taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize oil either (as in military action to "stabilize" (yeah, right) a "critical part" of the world economy).
Lord knows, they are probably incestuous and recursive and using reiserfs - who knows what fsck would uncover as it ran across the files intended to be mounted via loopbacks... That would truly be a CF.
I believe now that "do no evil" is subjective, "google of lawyers" is the correct term.
Intrusive Acquaintance: Say, I have this pain in my leg and some blood in my stool...
Target of Instrusion: That sounds serious...you should see your doctor about that...
I always liked the story about the ophthalmologist who had a problem with people coming up to him at cocktail parties for advice about "I have this... What do you think?". His response was to peer intently at their eye(s) for a few moments and then declare "If I were you, I'd have that eye removed". Apparently no one followed his advice nor asked him for advice again.
This is why I normally suggest using the recovery disk and point out that they will then have to restore their email, bookmarks, address books and the like from thier weekly backups (yeh, right). I've found that I rarely get a third call (the second call does come in though - Q:"Where is my email?" A:"Just as I warned you -- Gone, gone, gone as if they had been shredded in crosscut shredder, burned, and the ashes dumped out of a 737 at cruise altitude during a rainstorm.")
Assuming that it is true that more general tax funds in the US go for roads (building?, maintenance?, etc.) than is gathered in direct and indirect taxes on fuel... Using this logic, general tax funds spent for sidewalks and hiking trails would also be a subsidy to farmers who grow food that people eat to provide enough energy for them to walk. And to think that not only is there no "Federal Food Tax" but food is actually exempt from sale tax in at least some some states -- we must do something about these shameful subsidies.
WRT rent... I live in a large apartment complex owned by one of the largest multifamily dwelling unit REITs in the US. The office staff and managers (who change about every 18 months) are incredibly careless - for example, they screwed up my balance once to the tune of about 15 dollars and it took me four visits to the office, one meeting with the on-site manager, three interactions with corporate "customer service", and three phone discussions with the regional VP to actually get this sorted out (even though during the first contact and all subsequent contacts, they acknowledged it was their error).
Needless to say, I don't trust them with access to my bank account to "pull" money since a misplaced decimal point could create a messy problem for me to sort out. Another option is to 'push' money to them via bill-pay, but I can't trust them to notify me if their account number (at a bank other than mine) changes or some similar event causes the transfer to fail and my first indication that this happened being a 'three day notice to pay rent or quit' on my door (which, since I'm often out of town, I might not see for a week or more).
So, the only real option I have is to pay "in person" at the office and get a signed, numbered, paper receipt at the time of the transaction - and the only form of payment they will accept in the office is a check. Once I have the receipt (which also includes my check # and I also keep a scan of the check), no matter how badly they screw up, they end up paying whatever it costs me to fix it (except for my time, but that's why one uses a lawyer for such things and takes then advantage of the "loser pays legal expenses" clause in the lease - this clause cuts both ways!). So, I write 12 checks a year...
(Hint to those who accept the "your canceled check is your receipt" line - if they misplace your check, you're wedged since it never gets cashed and you never get your 'receipt'! At least in California, you have a legal right to a receipt at the time you provide payment - exercise that right.)
The relatively recent addition of the annoying "A script on this page is running slowly and driving you nuts. Nope, I'm not going to tell you which one, but would you like to continue or cancel it?" dialog was a pretty sad admission of surrender (I get it almost every time I "open in tabs" from my bookmark toolbar with my "important" eight web sites). Upon getting this dialog, I went poking around looking for the "what constitutes too slow" (or whatever the term they use is) in order to make it less picky (or disable it entirely), but found no knobs to turn in the obvious places (tools->options) before I gave up looking in disgust (yep, there may be a setting for it in about:config, but I was too disgusted to search for it).
I'd be really happy if FF would show me how much memory (current & peak) and how much CPU time each extension had "used" so I could decide which of my 25 extensions to nuke. Maybe this is technically difficult to do, but at this point FF has enough features to make spending time on usability issues appropriate.