I can see the government not wanting a man to enter or pass through the US, but it seems a little harsh to disallow a guy to enter or pass through DNA samples. I mean, sometimes you gotta pass through those DNA samples to get to critically important chromosomes.
Boy, you're right. I guess only [insert job title] are 'qualified' to insist other [insert same job title] stop playing video games while on company time and while 100's of lives depend on their being ready for anything. I'll remember that the next time I see a news report of an on-duty cop surfing porn in his patrol car. Who am I tell him how to do his job anyway?
We did a West Coast road trip this year and stayed in hotels ranging from 5-star Best Westerns to 2-star Motel 6's (um, Motels 6?). Consistently the Motel 6's had much better Wifi (e.g. faster, more secure, and better signal). Where most of the higher end hotels must have had a single WAP for the entire building. Not to mention most of their WPA passcodes were , whereas the Motel 6's gave me a one-use card with a unique passcode on it.
Sure, I would not come out ahead. But most corporation do. They are all very well aware that saying 'we give to X charity' will motivate people to spend their money with said corporation and they will make most if not all of it back (kind of like sponsoring a NASCAR racer). Just look at the explosion of all the 'think pink' breast cancer awareness crap that's come up in the past decade. It's the hot new thing to care about so companies from all across the spectrum are throwing a few grand at some charity (who then, in turn, pays their people with most of it) and then marketing that donation to people to promote the illusion of corporate humanity. Hell, look at how much Goldman Sachs gave to charity, while they were humping the whole country....
If they wanted to help they would give food, clothing, shelter, or just money. Giving a shiny Nintendo DS to a kid with a three pound tumor in his abdomen, while his parents are slowing bankrupted by medical bills, does nothing...other than sooth the conscience of the giver.
And all these volunteers are workers. Workers that provide 1000's of hours of labor, for free, to an organization. Now if all the employees of the organization took a legal vow of poverty, only received a living stipend, and the charity has no corporate 'sponsorship' (e.g. give us money and we will make you appear charitable) I would be cool with that. There are charities that do that and I support them. But as long as CP has salaried staff making money 'administering', no thanks.
You can also write off the income of anyone designated at 'administrators' of the charitable organization. The money comes into PA from ads and whatnot, they direct most (if not all) of it Childs Play (therefore writing it all off as a 'donation' to themselves), and set themselves up as administrators (therefore avoiding paying payroll taxes). And the money that comes directly from donors is just more income into the same de facto pool of cash (might be separated on paper, but they can pull whatever they want out of it as 'expenses'). But that income is not seen by the law as 'real' income, hence is tax free.
I like to read PA from time to time. I could do without the sophomoric language that seems to be thrown in simply to 'identify with the youth', but sometimes I really find the comic funny. But the Child Play charity is primarily just a tax shelter for PA. They make a lot on money on advertising and PAX, and use CP to avoid (or at least defer) paying taxes on it. Not that that's anything unusual for a corporation, but I hate when companies portray their 'charitable giving' as some grand altruistic philanthropy, when it's just a way for them to dodge taxes.
If the laws that allowed this type of behavior went away, so would the giving.
Glad to offer 'helpful advise [sic]' whenever I can. Once need to be an expert to understand technology that has been commonplace for several decades. I am not an electrical engineer either, but I can also offer advice on how to install a light bulb;)
Not so much. If someone is bored to sleep by this, they have no business piloting jumbo jets. If they do start to get drowsy, let the copilot take the controls for a few minutes (that's what they're for) and splash some water on your face.
Reminds me of the classic showing two pilots asking aloud "say...what's a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?". We could add (before this ruling) "sweet! I just beat your high score on Minesweeper.".
So why can't the 'online retailers' just buy the Apple products at authorized b&m retailers like everyone else, and then sell them at a premium online? I imagine a lot of folks would be willing to pay significantly more to get a product shipped to their home.
When was the last time your children demanded a printer?
Clearly this person has never had little children. Try getting them one of those Spongebob or Reader Rabbit games. Almost all of them offer B&W line drawings that kids are supposed to print out and color.We were out of ink when my little girl wanted to print hers off and, I swear, I thought she was going shiv me.
I guess I could buy her something like a "My First Wacom Tablet" (tm) and let her color paper-free, but I think that would be a bit cost prohibitive (but also awesome).
I guess we can now say this whole thing was not a publicity stunt? It's seems a bit insane to go so far as engaging real-life policecops for a publicity stunt.
In law, yes. But in fact, not so much. The law almost always sides with the landlord in these cases. The tricky part in that law is this other one that basically nullifies it if they call it a 'lease' instead of 'rent'.
...only specific reasons are legal, and if none of those reasons apply, the borrower is safe.
The borrower is never 'safe'. All the verbose replies aside, the lender can call your debt because they don't like your shoes, as long as they *call it* something else. If they want to call the loan, and the contract only allows certain conditions, the lender could easily manufacture said conditions. Devalued? The lender defines that with an appraiser they hire. Neglect? The lender defines that outright. And of course, being default on your payments is an automatic one. Seriously, you really should read through your mortgage contract (assuming you have one) and see exactly what that can do with the loan. Now, you could sue them, but who has that kind of money?
Now go stick your head in a pig, you ass.
Not saying I'm not curious, or even a little flattered, but that's not how I get down.
Indeed. Except, from Sony's PoV, the owner is whoever bought it from the store. Those 3rd party sales are kind of like rouge units. Maybe that's why they feel the need to piss of the whole community to reign in the ones that have gone mustang? No idea really...
The EU in EULA is 'End User'. That's the person (as far as the seller is concerned) who buys it from a retail outlet. Anyone after that is buying a used product that Sony couldn't care less about. This is why some places brag about being 'authorized resellers'. Of course this is all really moot since a marginally ethical person could buy a new PS3, put the old one in the box, and return to the store as 'defective'. They probably wouldn't get caught.
If you are AL, then you are grossly misinformed. The terms are there as a worst-case-scenario CYA move by the lenders. They are verbose at best, and do directly state such. But use many terms that could, at any time, be defined by the lender to do whatever they want. So if, for example, a whole community got pissed at some bank and painted 'BoA sucks weiner' in giant letters on all their homes (ludicrous example but you get the idea), the lender could claim this grossly devalues their holdings well below the loan amounts, and call all the debt at once. But this would never happen because they would essentially end the BoA mortgage business.
Kind of like a corporation that has an elaborate whistle-blower policy to sooth nervous investors, but never does anything when a worker ignores it and goes straight to the media. It's too politically sensitive at that point.
A purchase of the unit from a retail outlet has limited rights in the EULA. If someone buys it 2nd hand, they has even less. Unless, maybe, there is some 'transfer of ownership' mechanism that gives the new buyer all rights to warrant repair, etc. My 2nd hand hardware firewall had this so I have all the rights as a retail purchaser.
And you probably think that a person can't be fired from their job because they are black or a woman? In law it may be illegal, but since the one bound by the rules can define the words of the contact, it is, while not in law 'any reason', it is in fact 'any reason'. de facto.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see the government not wanting a man to enter or pass through the US, but it seems a little harsh to disallow a guy to enter or pass through DNA samples. I mean, sometimes you gotta pass through those DNA samples to get to critically important chromosomes.
facts that conflict with your naive worldview != lies
Boy, you're right. I guess only [insert job title] are 'qualified' to insist other [insert same job title] stop playing video games while on company time and while 100's of lives depend on their being ready for anything. I'll remember that the next time I see a news report of an on-duty cop surfing porn in his patrol car. Who am I tell him how to do his job anyway?
We did a West Coast road trip this year and stayed in hotels ranging from 5-star Best Westerns to 2-star Motel 6's (um, Motels 6?). Consistently the Motel 6's had much better Wifi (e.g. faster, more secure, and better signal). Where most of the higher end hotels must have had a single WAP for the entire building. Not to mention most of their WPA passcodes were , whereas the Motel 6's gave me a one-use card with a unique passcode on it.
Sure, I would not come out ahead. But most corporation do. They are all very well aware that saying 'we give to X charity' will motivate people to spend their money with said corporation and they will make most if not all of it back (kind of like sponsoring a NASCAR racer). Just look at the explosion of all the 'think pink' breast cancer awareness crap that's come up in the past decade. It's the hot new thing to care about so companies from all across the spectrum are throwing a few grand at some charity (who then, in turn, pays their people with most of it) and then marketing that donation to people to promote the illusion of corporate humanity. Hell, look at how much Goldman Sachs gave to charity, while they were humping the whole country....
If they wanted to help they would give food, clothing, shelter, or just money. Giving a shiny Nintendo DS to a kid with a three pound tumor in his abdomen, while his parents are slowing bankrupted by medical bills, does nothing...other than sooth the conscience of the giver.
And all these volunteers are workers. Workers that provide 1000's of hours of labor, for free, to an organization. Now if all the employees of the organization took a legal vow of poverty, only received a living stipend, and the charity has no corporate 'sponsorship' (e.g. give us money and we will make you appear charitable) I would be cool with that. There are charities that do that and I support them. But as long as CP has salaried staff making money 'administering', no thanks.
You can also write off the income of anyone designated at 'administrators' of the charitable organization. The money comes into PA from ads and whatnot, they direct most (if not all) of it Childs Play (therefore writing it all off as a 'donation' to themselves), and set themselves up as administrators (therefore avoiding paying payroll taxes). And the money that comes directly from donors is just more income into the same de facto pool of cash (might be separated on paper, but they can pull whatever they want out of it as 'expenses'). But that income is not seen by the law as 'real' income, hence is tax free.
I like to read PA from time to time. I could do without the sophomoric language that seems to be thrown in simply to 'identify with the youth', but sometimes I really find the comic funny. But the Child Play charity is primarily just a tax shelter for PA. They make a lot on money on advertising and PAX, and use CP to avoid (or at least defer) paying taxes on it. Not that that's anything unusual for a corporation, but I hate when companies portray their 'charitable giving' as some grand altruistic philanthropy, when it's just a way for them to dodge taxes.
If the laws that allowed this type of behavior went away, so would the giving.
Glad to offer 'helpful advise [sic]' whenever I can. Once need to be an expert to understand technology that has been commonplace for several decades. I am not an electrical engineer either, but I can also offer advice on how to install a light bulb ;)
Until something goes wrong, which it does far more often that is reported in the media.
Not so much. If someone is bored to sleep by this, they have no business piloting jumbo jets. If they do start to get drowsy, let the copilot take the controls for a few minutes (that's what they're for) and splash some water on your face.
Reminds me of the classic showing two pilots asking aloud "say...what's a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?". We could add (before this ruling) "sweet! I just beat your high score on Minesweeper.".
So why can't the 'online retailers' just buy the Apple products at authorized b&m retailers like everyone else, and then sell them at a premium online? I imagine a lot of folks would be willing to pay significantly more to get a product shipped to their home.
Are those dishwasher safe? These are little kids. I would have to buy a new Bamboo every few months due to jelly and snot build-up.
Clearly this person has never had little children. Try getting them one of those Spongebob or Reader Rabbit games. Almost all of them offer B&W line drawings that kids are supposed to print out and color.We were out of ink when my little girl wanted to print hers off and, I swear, I thought she was going shiv me.
I guess I could buy her something like a "My First Wacom Tablet" (tm) and let her color paper-free, but I think that would be a bit cost prohibitive (but also awesome).
I guess we can now say this whole thing was not a publicity stunt? It's seems a bit insane to go so far as engaging real-life policecops for a publicity stunt.
||this message has been removed until it can be checked by Slashdot admins||
In law, yes. But in fact, not so much. The law almost always sides with the landlord in these cases. The tricky part in that law is this other one that basically nullifies it if they call it a 'lease' instead of 'rent'.
The borrower is never 'safe'. All the verbose replies aside, the lender can call your debt because they don't like your shoes, as long as they *call it* something else. If they want to call the loan, and the contract only allows certain conditions, the lender could easily manufacture said conditions. Devalued? The lender defines that with an appraiser they hire. Neglect? The lender defines that outright. And of course, being default on your payments is an automatic one. Seriously, you really should read through your mortgage contract (assuming you have one) and see exactly what that can do with the loan. Now, you could sue them, but who has that kind of money?
Not saying I'm not curious, or even a little flattered, but that's not how I get down.
Indeed. Except, from Sony's PoV, the owner is whoever bought it from the store. Those 3rd party sales are kind of like rouge units. Maybe that's why they feel the need to piss of the whole community to reign in the ones that have gone mustang? No idea really...
The EU in EULA is 'End User'. That's the person (as far as the seller is concerned) who buys it from a retail outlet. Anyone after that is buying a used product that Sony couldn't care less about. This is why some places brag about being 'authorized resellers'. Of course this is all really moot since a marginally ethical person could buy a new PS3, put the old one in the box, and return to the store as 'defective'. They probably wouldn't get caught.
If you are AL, then you are grossly misinformed. The terms are there as a worst-case-scenario CYA move by the lenders. They are verbose at best, and do directly state such. But use many terms that could, at any time, be defined by the lender to do whatever they want. So if, for example, a whole community got pissed at some bank and painted 'BoA sucks weiner' in giant letters on all their homes (ludicrous example but you get the idea), the lender could claim this grossly devalues their holdings well below the loan amounts, and call all the debt at once. But this would never happen because they would essentially end the BoA mortgage business.
Kind of like a corporation that has an elaborate whistle-blower policy to sooth nervous investors, but never does anything when a worker ignores it and goes straight to the media. It's too politically sensitive at that point.
A purchase of the unit from a retail outlet has limited rights in the EULA. If someone buys it 2nd hand, they has even less. Unless, maybe, there is some 'transfer of ownership' mechanism that gives the new buyer all rights to warrant repair, etc. My 2nd hand hardware firewall had this so I have all the rights as a retail purchaser.
And you probably think that a person can't be fired from their job because they are black or a woman? In law it may be illegal, but since the one bound by the rules can define the words of the contact, it is, while not in law 'any reason', it is in fact 'any reason'. de facto.