The USA is actually the only first world country that even taxes their people while they are living overseas. For example in my country you don't need to pay any taxes back home if you live in another country for more than 6 months.
This is actually not correct. I've also heard this being said from many other sources, but in reality if, as one example (and I don't think it's the only one), you are a DoDDS (Dept. of Defense Dependents School) teacher living in, say, Europe or Asia - a teacher who is definitely a U.S. citizen - pays zero federal income taxes since they live outside CONUS. One of the 'benefits' of said such job. (FYI: DoDDS teachers typically teach the children of those in the military on U.S./NATO military bases around the world in a totally Americanized school system)
So the law should be based upon what you have personal sympathies for? I take it you don't have a problem with that? You don't see how that could go wrong?
Laws should be blindly enforced, regardless of how much $$ you have access to or how famous your face is. I don't care how much a celebrity whines that their personal life is being violated as long as the same so-called violation could be legally directed towards a non-celebrity. I'm certainly not claiming to base a law on my personal opinions. It's simple: Do not give celebrities any more special treatments (esp. legal authority) over their already royalty-level treatment they get now, but that's exactly what the 2010 CA anti-paparazzi law did that was signed into law by someone who was himself a major celebrity.
This thread is off-topic ever so slightly, but does anyone really think these 'rich and famous' should be legally treated 'better' than the rest of us? But, that's a flaw in our (USA's) legal system, isn't it. Money does buy happiness...er...powerful lawyers.
Should Snatching an iPhone Be a Felony? When celebs do it, hell yes. Screw 'em. Laws should reflect this. Why?
When Schwarzenegger signed an anti-paparazzi bill in 2010, it made it far easier for 'famous people' to sue media outlets that use photos that invade celebrities' privacy (particularly when vehicles are involved) in the state of California. Living in Los Angeles, I see celebs often enough to be quite jaded. Paparazzi annoy ME by getting in my way trying to snap those pictures for TMZ et al, but tough shit 'famous person', you're getting what you wished for. Having one's cake and eating it too, indeed.
I personally feel little sympathy for celebrities - their careers are often spent in and dependent upon being the center of attention, and cashing those multimillion dollar checks only further cements my opinion that they're also cashing in their personal lives, too. Period.
Essentially a nepotism-based employment opportunity where you're given the winning lottery ticket on a gold platter (with few real exceptions), being rich and famous takes a certain personality to handle that few have. Whether they're confusing their fame with wisdom or pushing their politics on the masses, these people need to be held far more accountable for their actions. Most were born on third base and confidently act like they hit a triple (as the saying goes).
(Irony: Brands' father was a professional photographer.)
FYI: Gov't teachers (K-12) are not paid on a GS grade level. Even DoDDS (Dept. of Def. Dependent School) teachers - the civilians who teach children of the military on a military base - are paid on a special teacher scale. No chance of being shuffled to another job that isn't teaching. However, they are set for life, as you mentioned (and even retire millionaires!).
Heck - once you get that nice government job and your salary is determined by factors such as amount of accredited college hours (e.g., teachers): online degrees are ideal for nice jumps in pay raises. Simply submit said degree to Human Resources and BAM! your salary is increased accordingly (and sometimes quite dramatically). None of your peers need to know - not even your boss.
Pepsi 'listened' to the HFCS complaints, and created this product, just for a limited time . I love how they emphasis "REAL" sugar vs. the artificially-created 'fake' crap called HFCS they continue to use today.
I prefer non-HFCS sodas such as Mexican-made Coke or Jarritos. Using HFCS, while less expensive and sweeter-tasting in less amounts to the human tongue than 'real' sugar, just makes soft drinks have that 'syrupy' taste and texture not found in 'real' sugar drinks.
I was referring to a different band, and using my case to demonstrate that being a fan doesn't equal being a fan club member.
I believe I understand your point. However, you do understand the benefits of obtaining certain fan-club memberships, no? If your favorite band had something similar to U2's method, would you still refuse to join? You'd miss out on hands-down the best tickets available for the least amount of money needed to purchase, free members-only CD releases...the list goes on. Money apparently isn't the issue for you since you say you attend every concert your band performs, purchase all their material, etc.
I don't think anyone's being tricked, as you state, "into thinking that 'real' fans don't get left out." I'm just stating what U2 management does - it actually costs LESS, in the end, by being a member for that 'real' fan (e.g., the $50 tickets are typically sold out before the general public gets a chance leaving much more expensive seats further away, free members-only CDs that are quite expensive in the aftermarket and eventually become collector's items). For me, quite literally, the membership fee pays for itself very quickly. Screw the scalpers/brokers.
Back to the main OP - I'm not a fan of a paperless ticket requiring ID and/or credit card for entry into, for example, a concert. Same reason I prefer physical media (PC or console games, etc.) - much greater ease of selling or giving away, if desired. I fully understand paperless for airline tickets (background checks on name), plus it's easier just having an I.D. for check-in.
You say U2 isn't your favorite band, but you're still a 'real' fan? I believe you. Heck, they're not even my favorite. But I make a small yearly investment (US$50 first year, discounted after) to receive impressive benefits (first dibs at tickets, fan-club-only CD releases, U2.com store discounts, etc.)
I guess I'm just a real fan who recognizes the advantages of belonging to a very affordable fan-club membership. Don't want to join the Club? Your choice, but don't complain about being "left out".
I also have memberships to Sam's Club and Costco for similar reasons.
U2 initially sell concert tickets based on how long you've been a member of their fan club. Being a long-time member, I have the privilege of easily being able to get the best tickets days before, say, newer fan club members (and even longer than the general public). Scalper issue solved for 'real' fans.
Don't have a long-time fan club membership? Tough shit (sorry, Grandma!).
Purchased $50 tickets for being right up against the front stage, even hours after the tickets go on sale (as in the 97,000 record-breaking sell-out at the Rose Bowl last year).
Want to sell those tickets? No problem. I was quite tempted to sell based on seeing prices on eBay (you simply exchange that ticket for a wristband for those with G.A. admission at the venue).
Brilliant. No fans complained. "Real" U2 fanatics had their tickets for far less than eventual scalper prices.
Could U2 have made much more money, knowing it would sell out by only charging $50 when $250 would have sold just as easily? Well, that's a whole different topic.
Fluoride (found in almost all toothpaste sold in the U.S., almost nonexistent in Europe toothpaste) is more toxic than arsenic. Well, many conspiracy-minded people, it seems, push that idea - but in reality it's quite close to arsenic as far as its 'relative toxicity' in humans.
Just making sure everyone knows their facts:
Remember magnitude doesn't measure INTENSITY of shaking but instead amount of energy released at the moment the earthquake begins.
Yes, the scale is logarithmic. So, a 5.0 earthquake is 32 times stronger than a 4.0, with a 6.0 releasing more than 1000 times the energy of a 4.0.
Feeling that 5.7 on the 15th of this month here in SoCal, the first thing that pops in my head is "How strong is this one going to feel - is it the Big One"?
It's actually quite cool to be able to feel the P-waves arrive first followed by the S-waves if the earthquake is both strong enough and far away enough for speed differences to be noticed.
It's also nice to notice someone mention the glacial rebound earthquakes of areas in far NE U.S. and S.E. Canada - that's the first thing I guessed the moment I heard about it.
ratemyprofessor.com Ok, this one isn't a retail site, but money is still involved and certainly so are many other factors (time, class grade, etc.) This website, with 8 million 'opinions' posted, will apparently remove negative comments made against college professors purely and simply due to a request made by said professor (and ostensibly others as well).
I took a class from this prof based on many good reviews, ended up disappointed, posted my legitimate and honest (to me) review. Noticed maybe a week later it was gone - wrote a second similar review, which too was later removed. Then noticed OTHER not-so-nice reviews posted around the same time had been removed from same prof. Overall, ratemyprofessor.com proved a great help with other profs, but one cannot trust it entirely.
...is that the Republicans-and probably more than a few Democrats-are going to blame Obama and his administration for something THEY ruined.
The media quickly started spinning the apparent 'failure' of Obama et al. Newsweek blog headline: "Losing the Olympics Bid Is Good for Obama"
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/02/losing-the-olympics-bid-is-good-for-obama.aspx
I saw that one coming a long way off.
Watching certain Chicago TV newscasters react in utter disbelief - as if it was a fait accompli Chicago won - was also amusing. Chicago weather typically suxs, anyway (although I do love the city).
Slashdot Mirror
The USA is actually the only first world country that even taxes their people while they are living overseas. For example in my country you don't need to pay any taxes back home if you live in another country for more than 6 months.
This is actually not correct. I've also heard this being said from many other sources, but in reality if, as one example (and I don't think it's the only one), you are a DoDDS (Dept. of Defense Dependents School) teacher living in, say, Europe or Asia - a teacher who is definitely a U.S. citizen - pays zero federal income taxes since they live outside CONUS. One of the 'benefits' of said such job. (FYI: DoDDS teachers typically teach the children of those in the military on U.S./NATO military bases around the world in a totally Americanized school system)
So the law should be based upon what you have personal sympathies for? I take it you don't have a problem with that? You don't see how that could go wrong?
Laws should be blindly enforced, regardless of how much $$ you have access to or how famous your face is. I don't care how much a celebrity whines that their personal life is being violated as long as the same so-called violation could be legally directed towards a non-celebrity. I'm certainly not claiming to base a law on my personal opinions. It's simple: Do not give celebrities any more special treatments (esp. legal authority) over their already royalty-level treatment they get now, but that's exactly what the 2010 CA anti-paparazzi law did that was signed into law by someone who was himself a major celebrity.
This thread is off-topic ever so slightly, but does anyone really think these 'rich and famous' should be legally treated 'better' than the rest of us? But, that's a flaw in our (USA's) legal system, isn't it. Money does buy happiness...er...powerful lawyers.
Should Snatching an iPhone Be a Felony? When celebs do it, hell yes. Screw 'em. Laws should reflect this. Why?
When Schwarzenegger signed an anti-paparazzi bill in 2010, it made it far easier for 'famous people' to sue media outlets that use photos that invade celebrities' privacy (particularly when vehicles are involved) in the state of California. Living in Los Angeles, I see celebs often enough to be quite jaded. Paparazzi annoy ME by getting in my way trying to snap those pictures for TMZ et al, but tough shit 'famous person', you're getting what you wished for. Having one's cake and eating it too, indeed.
I personally feel little sympathy for celebrities - their careers are often spent in and dependent upon being the center of attention, and cashing those multimillion dollar checks only further cements my opinion that they're also cashing in their personal lives, too. Period.
Essentially a nepotism-based employment opportunity where you're given the winning lottery ticket on a gold platter (with few real exceptions), being rich and famous takes a certain personality to handle that few have. Whether they're confusing their fame with wisdom or pushing their politics on the masses, these people need to be held far more accountable for their actions. Most were born on third base and confidently act like they hit a triple (as the saying goes).
(Irony: Brands' father was a professional photographer.)
Was that written to be funny? not Bose speakers but famous physicist, Satyendra Nath Bose.
I didn't write it clever enough, apparently. I made the poor assumption that /. readers wouldn't read it at face value. Silly me.
Blame the Kraken Black Spiced.
Since when did an overrated speaker company get involved in physics? I would have preferred B&W-Einstein meself.
FYI: Gov't teachers (K-12) are not paid on a GS grade level. Even DoDDS (Dept. of Def. Dependent School) teachers - the civilians who teach children of the military on a military base - are paid on a special teacher scale. No chance of being shuffled to another job that isn't teaching. However, they are set for life, as you mentioned (and even retire millionaires!).
Heck - once you get that nice government job and your salary is determined by factors such as amount of accredited college hours (e.g., teachers): online degrees are ideal for nice jumps in pay raises. Simply submit said degree to Human Resources and BAM! your salary is increased accordingly (and sometimes quite dramatically). None of your peers need to know - not even your boss.
Pepsi 'listened' to the HFCS complaints, and created this product, just for a limited time . I love how they emphasis "REAL" sugar vs. the artificially-created 'fake' crap called HFCS they continue to use today.
I prefer non-HFCS sodas such as Mexican-made Coke or Jarritos. Using HFCS, while less expensive and sweeter-tasting in less amounts to the human tongue than 'real' sugar, just makes soft drinks have that 'syrupy' taste and texture not found in 'real' sugar drinks.
I wonder how much HTC and Motorola had to pay Lucas to use the name for their phones (you'd think I was kidding).
Star Wars prevented him from having any other successful films for the rest of this life, and he resents the series because of that.
Indiana Jones. Fiancée hypothesis rejected.
I was referring to a different band, and using my case to demonstrate that being a fan doesn't equal being a fan club member.
I believe I understand your point. However, you do understand the benefits of obtaining certain fan-club memberships, no? If your favorite band had something similar to U2's method, would you still refuse to join? You'd miss out on hands-down the best tickets available for the least amount of money needed to purchase, free members-only CD releases...the list goes on. Money apparently isn't the issue for you since you say you attend every concert your band performs, purchase all their material, etc.
I don't think anyone's being tricked, as you state, "into thinking that 'real' fans don't get left out." I'm just stating what U2 management does - it actually costs LESS, in the end, by being a member for that 'real' fan (e.g., the $50 tickets are typically sold out before the general public gets a chance leaving much more expensive seats further away, free members-only CDs that are quite expensive in the aftermarket and eventually become collector's items). For me, quite literally, the membership fee pays for itself very quickly. Screw the scalpers/brokers.
Back to the main OP - I'm not a fan of a paperless ticket requiring ID and/or credit card for entry into, for example, a concert. Same reason I prefer physical media (PC or console games, etc.) - much greater ease of selling or giving away, if desired. I fully understand paperless for airline tickets (background checks on name), plus it's easier just having an I.D. for check-in.
You say U2 isn't your favorite band, but you're still a 'real' fan? I believe you. Heck, they're not even my favorite. But I make a small yearly investment (US$50 first year, discounted after) to receive impressive benefits (first dibs at tickets, fan-club-only CD releases, U2.com store discounts, etc.)
I guess I'm just a real fan who recognizes the advantages of belonging to a very affordable fan-club membership. Don't want to join the Club? Your choice, but don't complain about being "left out".
I also have memberships to Sam's Club and Costco for similar reasons.
U2 initially sell concert tickets based on how long you've been a member of their fan club. Being a long-time member, I have the privilege of easily being able to get the best tickets days before, say, newer fan club members (and even longer than the general public). Scalper issue solved for 'real' fans.
Don't have a long-time fan club membership? Tough shit (sorry, Grandma!).
Purchased $50 tickets for being right up against the front stage, even hours after the tickets go on sale (as in the 97,000 record-breaking sell-out at the Rose Bowl last year).
Want to sell those tickets? No problem. I was quite tempted to sell based on seeing prices on eBay (you simply exchange that ticket for a wristband for those with G.A. admission at the venue).
Brilliant. No fans complained. "Real" U2 fanatics had their tickets for far less than eventual scalper prices.
Could U2 have made much more money, knowing it would sell out by only charging $50 when $250 would have sold just as easily? Well, that's a whole different topic.
Fluoride (found in almost all toothpaste sold in the U.S., almost nonexistent in Europe toothpaste) is more toxic than arsenic. Well, many conspiracy-minded people, it seems, push that idea - but in reality it's quite close to arsenic as far as its 'relative toxicity' in humans.
Just making sure everyone knows their facts: Remember magnitude doesn't measure INTENSITY of shaking but instead amount of energy released at the moment the earthquake begins. Yes, the scale is logarithmic. So, a 5.0 earthquake is 32 times stronger than a 4.0, with a 6.0 releasing more than 1000 times the energy of a 4.0. Feeling that 5.7 on the 15th of this month here in SoCal, the first thing that pops in my head is "How strong is this one going to feel - is it the Big One"? It's actually quite cool to be able to feel the P-waves arrive first followed by the S-waves if the earthquake is both strong enough and far away enough for speed differences to be noticed. It's also nice to notice someone mention the glacial rebound earthquakes of areas in far NE U.S. and S.E. Canada - that's the first thing I guessed the moment I heard about it.
ratemyprofessor.com Ok, this one isn't a retail site, but money is still involved and certainly so are many other factors (time, class grade, etc.) This website, with 8 million 'opinions' posted, will apparently remove negative comments made against college professors purely and simply due to a request made by said professor (and ostensibly others as well). I took a class from this prof based on many good reviews, ended up disappointed, posted my legitimate and honest (to me) review. Noticed maybe a week later it was gone - wrote a second similar review, which too was later removed. Then noticed OTHER not-so-nice reviews posted around the same time had been removed from same prof. Overall, ratemyprofessor.com proved a great help with other profs, but one cannot trust it entirely.
...is that the Republicans-and probably more than a few Democrats-are going to blame Obama and his administration for something THEY ruined.
The media quickly started spinning the apparent 'failure' of Obama et al. Newsweek blog headline: "Losing the Olympics Bid Is Good for Obama" http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/02/losing-the-olympics-bid-is-good-for-obama.aspx I saw that one coming a long way off. Watching certain Chicago TV newscasters react in utter disbelief - as if it was a fait accompli Chicago won - was also amusing. Chicago weather typically suxs, anyway (although I do love the city).