Many schools provide transport for the debate team, but this implies that they're not going to the "prestigious" events that are necessary to be considered really good.
It is not actually possible to get from Podunk High to the top of that sort of competition unless you had significant additional resources to attend prestigious events separately from your team.
They would need a contract to charge a cancellation fee that goes beyond a partial refund; that is, they can give you a smaller refund, or no refund, because of a cancellation fee that they merely disclosed. But they cannot charge you new money without an express contract.
The airline ticketing system can't support that sort of express contract, because it would mean no resale of tickets is possible.
A EULA governs how a service is provided, but it doesn't create any obligations. Generally, any obligation you hold somebody to requires a contract separate from the information you provide as part of a sale.
It has to be "express consent," which means that the consent is informed, and reasoned. Fine print bundled with a product or service, or disclosed on their website, is not reasoned, explicit, intentional consent.
So as a contract, those types of policies only touch on what the service provider is promising to do; a requirement on the customer is actually a conditional requirement on the service provider that lets them terminate the service, it doesn't actually create any obligations.
If you bought a whole book of tickets, they could set conditions and threaten to cancel the rest of the tickets; but if you're done using whatever tickets they sold you, you can't possibly have any obligation to them left over. And you decide when you're done, see above.
Well, from my point of view, if I forced you to give me $20, I'd have your $20.
So if I didn't force you to give me $20, that's basically a $20 loss.
You stole my $20!!!!!
lol
It may be that in the attempt to prove that they lost money, they'll accidentally prove that their contracts with airports are intended to act as price fixing, and that they actively harm the consumer. Anti-trust law usually only kicks in when the consumer is harmed with higher prices, and they've probably been arguing that the arrangements benefit the consumer. Hopefully they have different lawyers working on these things and they'll really make this mistake, because popcorn.
OK, does that argument make sense in both directions, or only in one direction?
If they have an extra person and not enough fuel, problem. If they have one person's worth of fuel left over, but got paid full price, what did they lose?
If their fuel efficiency is slightly lower but they made slightly more money, they didn't even experience a loss.
Except it isn't, you're just saying it is, and using a different situation that isn't analogous to make it sound like the word is relevant.
There is no "game" is getting the lowest price offered for the services you desire; it is merely an optional hassle.
The airlines are the ones gaming the prices and schedules, and they simply aren't as good as they wish they were at it. So instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they want to blame the customers. They can try because regulator lock-in, but in the US they'll fail. In Europe they might succeed, but it will probably cause their game to shut down if they do accidentally win.
OK, so don't use the word "skip" as a pejorative, and the whole problem is solved! Wow, that was easy. They didn't "skip out," they "went somewhere else because they enjoy Freedom."
If they were passing the payment on to the customer, then they'd have a complaint.
If they're keeping that money and it encourages them to offer lower prices, then they have no complaint.
Customers are not responsible for managing the budgets of the airlines, or to make their business decisions for them. And when they try, the airlines say "no" to everything customers want, universally.
Nobody asks for proof of doubts, they ask for reasons in order to find out if the doubts are reasoned and if enough information is provided they might even start to consider if the doubts are reasonable.
You don't seem to actually have doubts at all, BTW. You seem to have Faith that the result of the experiment is unknown. Even though you could learn to do the experiment at home, yourself. You have access to the results, there is no cause for either Faith or Doubt. If you don't know the answer, it is because you haven't looked into it, not because you did the experiment and the result was unclear.
You probably just have fondest memories of hotbot, and so it grows in your memory and it seems as if it takes up a longer time period of your history than what really happened.
Pagerank isn't filtering, it is ordering. That's the whole point of the feature; filtering technology wasn't good enough yet, the results were comical and well-reported, such as not being able to research breast cancer on some sites.
I asked myself, what grammatical correction could be made to that sentence so that it parses as English, and I came up at least 4 or 5 different potential things you could have meant, depending which of the many mistakes I correct, and in which direction.
Schools fund infrastructure investment based on local voters approving bond measures that are repaid from local property taxes.
You red state morons only hate the Ebil Gubermint because you suck at civics and don't learn how to vote on specific issues that you claim you care about; if you did care, then you'd already be in control of those issues locally. Like we are in blue states.
Politicians don't spend shit. Professional administrators come to the People with a funding request, and the People then Vote on it. Politicians pass laws to set the standards for how those professionals do their jobs. There is no external force to blame, there is no scapegoat. Voters spend tax money, not politicians.
You can't expect administrators and teachers to be saints; they're ordinary people
According to the summary, even a professor of adolescent medicine might confuse an activity that is often done at night in preference to sleep with an activity that might instead affect a person's ability to sleep.
Slashdot Mirror
If they had professional debate judges
"...swayed more among an audience of hundreds toward his point of view than the AI-powered IBM Debater did"
Many schools provide transport for the debate team, but this implies that they're not going to the "prestigious" events that are necessary to be considered really good.
It is not actually possible to get from Podunk High to the top of that sort of competition unless you had significant additional resources to attend prestigious events separately from your team.
And yet, they teach out of the same books, and everything on the test is either in the book, or part of the professor's bias.
But I heard it is going to be the new slashdot, so maybe? LOL
They would need a contract to charge a cancellation fee that goes beyond a partial refund; that is, they can give you a smaller refund, or no refund, because of a cancellation fee that they merely disclosed. But they cannot charge you new money without an express contract.
The airline ticketing system can't support that sort of express contract, because it would mean no resale of tickets is possible.
You can't bundle a promise with a sale.
A EULA governs how a service is provided, but it doesn't create any obligations. Generally, any obligation you hold somebody to requires a contract separate from the information you provide as part of a sale.
It has to be "express consent," which means that the consent is informed, and reasoned. Fine print bundled with a product or service, or disclosed on their website, is not reasoned, explicit, intentional consent.
So as a contract, those types of policies only touch on what the service provider is promising to do; a requirement on the customer is actually a conditional requirement on the service provider that lets them terminate the service, it doesn't actually create any obligations.
If you bought a whole book of tickets, they could set conditions and threaten to cancel the rest of the tickets; but if you're done using whatever tickets they sold you, you can't possibly have any obligation to them left over. And you decide when you're done, see above.
Well, from my point of view, if I forced you to give me $20, I'd have your $20.
So if I didn't force you to give me $20, that's basically a $20 loss.
You stole my $20!!!!!
lol
It may be that in the attempt to prove that they lost money, they'll accidentally prove that their contracts with airports are intended to act as price fixing, and that they actively harm the consumer. Anti-trust law usually only kicks in when the consumer is harmed with higher prices, and they've probably been arguing that the arrangements benefit the consumer. Hopefully they have different lawyers working on these things and they'll really make this mistake, because popcorn.
OK, does that argument make sense in both directions, or only in one direction?
If they have an extra person and not enough fuel, problem. If they have one person's worth of fuel left over, but got paid full price, what did they lose?
If their fuel efficiency is slightly lower but they made slightly more money, they didn't even experience a loss.
Except it isn't, you're just saying it is, and using a different situation that isn't analogous to make it sound like the word is relevant.
There is no "game" is getting the lowest price offered for the services you desire; it is merely an optional hassle.
The airlines are the ones gaming the prices and schedules, and they simply aren't as good as they wish they were at it. So instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they want to blame the customers. They can try because regulator lock-in, but in the US they'll fail. In Europe they might succeed, but it will probably cause their game to shut down if they do accidentally win.
The skipping out part is the issue.
OK, so don't use the word "skip" as a pejorative, and the whole problem is solved! Wow, that was easy. They didn't "skip out," they "went somewhere else because they enjoy Freedom."
If they were passing the payment on to the customer, then they'd have a complaint.
If they're keeping that money and it encourages them to offer lower prices, then they have no complaint.
Customers are not responsible for managing the budgets of the airlines, or to make their business decisions for them. And when they try, the airlines say "no" to everything customers want, universally.
I thought it was gonna be the Church Lady from SNL.
Maybe we should just declare war on the polluters, and bomb them? Less people, less pollution.
That's disgusting, have you ever even been to Crete?
My god, that's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. And it is a weekend for Pete's sake.
Nobody asks for proof of doubts, they ask for reasons in order to find out if the doubts are reasoned and if enough information is provided they might even start to consider if the doubts are reasonable.
You don't seem to actually have doubts at all, BTW. You seem to have Faith that the result of the experiment is unknown. Even though you could learn to do the experiment at home, yourself. You have access to the results, there is no cause for either Faith or Doubt. If you don't know the answer, it is because you haven't looked into it, not because you did the experiment and the result was unclear.
I can haz cargo? I can haz cheeseburder cargo?
What if I wave my hands, can I be a sciencer?
He said it right there, the proof that the guy is highly intelligent is that he gets paid millions of dollars by an oil company.
You probably just have fondest memories of hotbot, and so it grows in your memory and it seems as if it takes up a longer time period of your history than what really happened.
Pagerank isn't filtering, it is ordering. That's the whole point of the feature; filtering technology wasn't good enough yet, the results were comical and well-reported, such as not being able to research breast cancer on some sites.
I asked myself, what grammatical correction could be made to that sentence so that it parses as English, and I came up at least 4 or 5 different potential things you could have meant, depending which of the many mistakes I correct, and in which direction.
Liar liar, pants on fire!
We vote on all new taxes here.
Schools fund infrastructure investment based on local voters approving bond measures that are repaid from local property taxes.
You red state morons only hate the Ebil Gubermint because you suck at civics and don't learn how to vote on specific issues that you claim you care about; if you did care, then you'd already be in control of those issues locally. Like we are in blue states.
Politicians don't spend shit. Professional administrators come to the People with a funding request, and the People then Vote on it. Politicians pass laws to set the standards for how those professionals do their jobs. There is no external force to blame, there is no scapegoat. Voters spend tax money, not politicians.
You can't expect administrators and teachers to be saints; they're ordinary people
According to the summary, even a professor of adolescent medicine might confuse an activity that is often done at night in preference to sleep with an activity that might instead affect a person's ability to sleep.
It's regular people, all the way down. Or up.
If you vaccinate, your find.. Don't worry bit it
Correct. If you vaccinate the animal you found, and it bites you, you're less likely to get an infection.
But are you sure that is what this story is about?
They're not raising themselves, they have the Great Firewall to raise them.
Golly, if these machines are capable of thinking, why not just instruct the machines to turn off at night?
Lets see your chalk slate manage that.