This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.
You've just described the opposite situation! Of course it makes sense for people from poorer countries to go work in wealthier countries. But that's not the situation being discussed here.
I believe the point was that after paying living expenses here they can send a modest amount of money overseas, where it's comparatively a boatload of money, to support their family.
I don't think that they could legally put into the EULA a disclaimer saying that by accepting this EULA you accept (or must accept) any changes to the EULA in the future.
There may be some grounds for a lawsuit, though, if they change the EULA and you don't accept, you're left without any product. The EULA, as a contract, should be binding for both parties until a new contract is agreed upon by both parties. If it's not binding as such, then I would think it doesn't classify as a contract.
I was under the impression that it really is voodoo science.
How is a black hole supposed to form from these experiments? Either I'm entirely mistaken about the nature of black "holes", or the scientists commenting on the probability of one are little more than code monkeys banging the keyboard to try to get results.
Doesn't a black hole require an incredible mass? Do they think they're going to be creating matter, or creating artificial gravity? Outside of those two possibilities, how could a black "hole" ever form?
I would estimate the probability of creating a black hole to be exactly 0.
You seem to think that my comment stands alone. It was a reply to someone who said Bush did very little.
I was simply saying that the $700 billion deal was not little and it will exacerbate the crisis. (Granted, we aren't suffering the ill effects of that decision, yet.)
Your blind quest to vilify Bush is, at best, foolish.
Funny. You seem to know all about me. I'm on a quest to vilify Bush alone, by pointing out his deeds. I'm sure he's grateful that you came to his rescue.
Bush is no more to blame for supporting the banks than Obama, or McCain, or pretty much anybody in Congress. Both parties signed off on the bank bailout.
Except that Bush led the war on the middle class, and McCain and Obama merely followed. Yes, both parties signed off on the bailout, but that was after a great deal of fearmongering by the Bush administration.
Even if I were to assume there was a pellet of intelligence in your comment, what solution do you propose, abolish banks?
I thought you'd never ask.
End income taxes. Dismantle the Federal Reserve. Raise tariffs. Eliminate the FDIC, Freddie and Fannie.
I'm sure I haven't thought about this enough, though. You're probably right. My argument has no intelligence behind it.
Many banks were facing financial difficulty and were in danger of failing. Bush helped them out by securing them $700 billion. I was not discounting what others have done, but Bush helped make sure that banks could continue to foreclose. I was saying that's the ONE big thing that Bush DID do for this crisis. Get it?
We're not on the verge of a crisis, we're in the middle of one. And by crisis I don't mean what is apparent now, what has happened to date, but what is to come. We are already in the trap. The only question in my mind is how deep we sink, and if we (the USA) be sent back to the stone age by the "advancements" of our society, or if we will move further towards globalization (which I believe would be worse, and which is more likely).
I don't recall that you ever did, or that I ever said anything to suggest you did. I was merely talking about how Bush has contributed, not to the original fiasco, but with what is yet to come.
What Bush HAS done is ensured these banks that they have government support as they do their dirty deeds, so that they themselves don't go bankrupt as they take homes from individuals who can't afford their homes.
Hmm... so the nearly-unanimous Senate votes approving these various people (Fed Chair, SEC members, including two under Democrat control of the Senate and two more during a "power-sharing" agreement) somehow mean nothing?
The one thing I hold Bush accountable for is asking for, and then signing, the shit-flinging piece of crap known as the "bailout." But that was a knee-jerk reaction by the Congressional Democrap/Rethuglican monkeys whose only response to any problem is to fling Federal money around as if it were poo.
I was talking about the "bailout". It was intended to give liquidity to failing banks, to help them continue their business of taking homes from people.
Actually, I would give President Bush more credit than that, anyways.
What we are seeing right now is the fulfillment of Jefferson's prophecy: "If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."
What Bush HAS done is ensured these banks that they have government support as they do their dirty deeds, so that they themselves don't go bankrupt as they take homes from individuals who can't afford their homes.
So thanks, Bush, for empowering the banks to further the exploitation of the American people.
Does anyone realize yet that this is class warfare?
He's done this to himself, I don't mean to interrupt (well, actually I do) but I have to ask, are you implying that the patches he had applied were not, in fact, distributed by Microsoft for the product he was running and likely came recommended by the updater? Or are you implying that, by having Microsoft Vista in the first place, he was asking for it?
Because when a product isn't working right, one of the first steps is to see if there are any patches available from the manufacturer/distributer. Most consumers feel that they should at least be able to trust their manufacturer/distributer with providing competent support, and would likely apply any patches that came recommended by them without question. It should work, shouldn't it? To blame a consumer for trusting is to say that the manufacturer/distributer is unworthy of that trust.
Not that I disagree with you. You just seemed to be saying that, because he didn't read the knowledge base article on the bug to try to remedy the problem first, he was asking for problems. What that implies is much deeper than that and, what you're really saying is, people who use Microsoft software without caution are fools.
How about the window for leaving feedback as a seller is 30 days, versus 60 or 90 days for a buyer? A seller should know within 30 days if the buyer is a deadbeat. After payment is made and cleared the bank, there's nothing more that the buyer is obligated to do.
You sir, are an idiot. Sir.
sure it is, there are laws and everything. In fact, that's just a stupid statement. Copyright infringement is a "civil" matter between the holder of the copyright & the infringer. It is not "illegal" IANAL, but you are full of shit.
Perhaps the rhetoric you meant was it's not CRIMINAL. It is a civil matter of law, not a criminal matter of law (although there is such a thing as "with criminal intent", which automatically makes it a crime).
With a strong emphasis on "reasonable". Why was he awarded only about US$20k when RIAA asks for millions per song? Quite simply, because he forgot to sue for assumed generational damages, where the defendant not only created an unauthorized copy, but redistributed it to others who may have violated the copyright as well.
they loose almost nothing if they yank the items With their other recent policy decisions, I hope this leads to a mass migration away from eBay. I plan on going somewhere else.
Religon is nothing more than a means for the MINORITY to CONTROL the MAJORITY and the sooner you all get to realise that the better the world will be It's a great deal more. But it certainly is abused in that way, just like..... politics.
Although I think that money trumps all. We should get rid of money, because it's nothing more than a means for the minority to control the majority.
Insisting that they are a Church really isn't fair to the other religions humanity knows. Nevermind they use a name with "church" in it (not in Israel..!). AFAIK Scientology is a company run by greedy, manipulative lunatics for sheer profit. I have to ask, when was the last time you went to church? And when was the last time you saw a TV evangelist?
That sounds quite a bit like some churches I've gone to. And seen on TV.
This is an example of the No true Scottsman fallacy Not so. If someone calls themselves a Scotsman, but they are really not, is it a fallacy to say they are not a true Scotsman?
Unless the words have been redefined, someone who conserves is a conservative. If their spending habits are liberal, then they are not fiscally conservative.
It's pretty rudimentary, if-the-shoe-fits-then-wear-it kind of stuff. To deny that is to deny the fact that words have certain meanings that are not reassignable is to reduce language to confusion and utter nonsense.
Remember, the USA has a higher per-capita prison population than any other country, including China. Yeah, I think that has something to do with the fact that, in China, the death penalty is given more liberally and executed more swiftly. That and the people are afraid of their government. I think the two might be related.
We don't even kill most of our criminals who are sentenced to death.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 3.11 was not an operating system, as you had to have DOS (an operating system) installed before you could install Windows.
This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.
You've just described the opposite situation! Of course it makes sense for people from poorer countries to go work in wealthier countries. But that's not the situation being discussed here.
I believe the point was that after paying living expenses here they can send a modest amount of money overseas, where it's comparatively a boatload of money, to support their family.
Please, don't give Microsoft any more ideas.
I don't think that they could legally put into the EULA a disclaimer saying that by accepting this EULA you accept (or must accept) any changes to the EULA in the future.
There may be some grounds for a lawsuit, though, if they change the EULA and you don't accept, you're left without any product. The EULA, as a contract, should be binding for both parties until a new contract is agreed upon by both parties. If it's not binding as such, then I would think it doesn't classify as a contract.
Really? I've never been to a theater where my knees WEREN'T embedded into the back of the seat in front of me.
I'm a tall individual
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
But it was clearly time for something completely different.
I was under the impression that it really is voodoo science.
How is a black hole supposed to form from these experiments? Either I'm entirely mistaken about the nature of black "holes", or the scientists commenting on the probability of one are little more than code monkeys banging the keyboard to try to get results.
Doesn't a black hole require an incredible mass? Do they think they're going to be creating matter, or creating artificial gravity? Outside of those two possibilities, how could a black "hole" ever form?
I would estimate the probability of creating a black hole to be exactly 0.
You seem to think that my comment stands alone. It was a reply to someone who said Bush did very little.
I was simply saying that the $700 billion deal was not little and it will exacerbate the crisis. (Granted, we aren't suffering the ill effects of that decision, yet.)
Your blind quest to vilify Bush is, at best, foolish.
Funny. You seem to know all about me. I'm on a quest to vilify Bush alone, by pointing out his deeds. I'm sure he's grateful that you came to his rescue.
Bush is no more to blame for supporting the banks than Obama, or McCain, or pretty much anybody in Congress. Both parties signed off on the bank bailout.
Except that Bush led the war on the middle class, and McCain and Obama merely followed. Yes, both parties signed off on the bailout, but that was after a great deal of fearmongering by the Bush administration.
Even if I were to assume there was a pellet of intelligence in your comment, what solution do you propose, abolish banks?
I thought you'd never ask.
End income taxes. Dismantle the Federal Reserve. Raise tariffs. Eliminate the FDIC, Freddie and Fannie.
I'm sure I haven't thought about this enough, though. You're probably right. My argument has no intelligence behind it.
Capitalism isn't a zero sum game.
What makes you think that we have capitalism?
Many banks were facing financial difficulty and were in danger of failing. Bush helped them out by securing them $700 billion. I was not discounting what others have done, but Bush helped make sure that banks could continue to foreclose. I was saying that's the ONE big thing that Bush DID do for this crisis. Get it?
We're not on the verge of a crisis, we're in the middle of one. And by crisis I don't mean what is apparent now, what has happened to date, but what is to come. We are already in the trap. The only question in my mind is how deep we sink, and if we (the USA) be sent back to the stone age by the "advancements" of our society, or if we will move further towards globalization (which I believe would be worse, and which is more likely).
When did I say I was for the "bailout"?
I don't recall that you ever did, or that I ever said anything to suggest you did. I was merely talking about how Bush has contributed, not to the original fiasco, but with what is yet to come.
What Bush HAS done is ensured these banks that they have government support as they do their dirty deeds, so that they themselves don't go bankrupt as they take homes from individuals who can't afford their homes.
Hmm... so the nearly-unanimous Senate votes approving these various people (Fed Chair, SEC members, including two under Democrat control of the Senate and two more during a "power-sharing" agreement) somehow mean nothing?
The one thing I hold Bush accountable for is asking for, and then signing, the shit-flinging piece of crap known as the "bailout." But that was a knee-jerk reaction by the Congressional Democrap/Rethuglican monkeys whose only response to any problem is to fling Federal money around as if it were poo.
I was talking about the "bailout". It was intended to give liquidity to failing banks, to help them continue their business of taking homes from people.
Actually, I would give President Bush more credit than that, anyways.
What we are seeing right now is the fulfillment of Jefferson's prophecy: "If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."
What Bush HAS done is ensured these banks that they have government support as they do their dirty deeds, so that they themselves don't go bankrupt as they take homes from individuals who can't afford their homes.
So thanks, Bush, for empowering the banks to further the exploitation of the American people.
Does anyone realize yet that this is class warfare?
Because when a product isn't working right, one of the first steps is to see if there are any patches available from the manufacturer/distributer. Most consumers feel that they should at least be able to trust their manufacturer/distributer with providing competent support, and would likely apply any patches that came recommended by them without question. It should work, shouldn't it? To blame a consumer for trusting is to say that the manufacturer/distributer is unworthy of that trust.
Not that I disagree with you. You just seemed to be saying that, because he didn't read the knowledge base article on the bug to try to remedy the problem first, he was asking for problems. What that implies is much deeper than that and, what you're really saying is, people who use Microsoft software without caution are fools.
How about the window for leaving feedback as a seller is 30 days, versus 60 or 90 days for a buyer? A seller should know within 30 days if the buyer is a deadbeat. After payment is made and cleared the bank, there's nothing more that the buyer is obligated to do.
What does ownership have to do with anything? Ownership of a great license? Because if I remember correctly, you don't actually own the product.
Technicality? Not if the restrictive/intrusive license is your biggest objection to the product.
Perhaps the rhetoric you meant was it's not CRIMINAL. It is a civil matter of law, not a criminal matter of law (although there is such a thing as "with criminal intent", which automatically makes it a crime).
It's still illegal. Sir.
Thanks. I always wondered the light peeking around the shades on my basement window was from, but I was never venturous enough to find out.
Although I think that money trumps all. We should get rid of money, because it's nothing more than a means for the minority to control the majority.
That sounds quite a bit like some churches I've gone to. And seen on TV.
Unless the words have been redefined, someone who conserves is a conservative. If their spending habits are liberal, then they are not fiscally conservative.
It's pretty rudimentary, if-the-shoe-fits-then-wear-it kind of stuff. To deny that is to deny the fact that words have certain meanings that are not reassignable is to reduce language to confusion and utter nonsense.
We don't even kill most of our criminals who are sentenced to death.