Comment Re:Has or won't. (Score 1) 69
Grammar is hard!
It has won't be being so hard after you has will have been being studying it more.
Or as Yoda would say it, it so hard after you studying it more has will have been being has won't be being.
Grammar is hard!
It has won't be being so hard after you has will have been being studying it more.
Or as Yoda would say it, it so hard after you studying it more has will have been being has won't be being.
has won't be = periphrastic perfect future passive contrafactual modal participular infinitival indicative of "is"
Change you name to Kim Putin, and no one will mess with you.
Broke and his defense team quit without explanation. Can't imagine any connection there, eh?
Uhm, you're supposed to notice this before you sign, not after you go bankrupt.
Sorry, the limit is 1 conspiracy theory per post.
Source of my
Another team tried it with Star Wars discs and coundn't reproduce the effect.
So... you don't see any chance that the grand jury reached their decision without KKK involvement? What about aliens? or the Illuminati? Maybe the Trilateral Commission?
I think Occam's razor is more likely.
Whether the term is enforceable or not is debatable and almost certain to be rendered moot. Unlike US Republicans, UK Conservatives do actually believe in the rule of law and honest business practices (sort of). There isn't any party who believes that screwing the consumer is a constitutional right. There will be a bill passed.
A rather more direct question is whether the hotelier was entitled to collect the charge under the credit card agreement. And that is unambiguous, he isn't. A credit card merchant cannot use a charge card to recover a disputed charge. It does not matter what the purported contract term was or if it is enforceable. The credit card agreements are designed to prevent cardholders from dishonest merchants. So the consumer will get their refund and the hotelier will find themselves facing a 30 quid chargeback fee.
The only option for the hotelier to recover would be to take the matter to court. The most he could win is the hundred pounds, if he lost he would likely be out the legal costs which could be a couple of thousand. Small claims courts don't usually award costs but they might well do so in this case. Judges tend to detest bullies.
Its more than that, without regulation you end up with a lemon-law market.
Lots of times the difference between an honest product and a dishonest one only becomes apparent years later. If the product is safety equipment you only find out if the hard hat works when someone drops the brick on your head.
The libertarian theory that self interest will drive people to make honest products has turned out to be utterly false. In fact it turns out to be quite difficult for a company that intends to do the right thing to do so. I once had to get a guy fired after I found he had goosed his response rates for customer support calls by deliberately setting the phone tree up as a maze.
People do all sorts of idiotic short sighted stuff. This hotelier for example got his pants in a twist over a bad review and now he has probably sunk his business completely.
Rational choice is not an empirical fact of human behavior. It is a modelling assumption that tends to give good results in certain cases. But it does not hold for corporations because the interests of the corporation are not identical to those of the employees. All those banks who go belly up because the traders get big rewards for raking in profits and face no consequences for a loss. I don't gamble with my own money but if you want to give me $100,000 to gamble with I am happy to take it to Vegas, find a roulette wheel and let you take 100% of any losses and 90% of any gains.
Correct, though career choice is also a major factor.
Back in college I'd noticed that my Computer Science program was probably 90% male... while the Elementary Education program was probably 90% female. While many will claim that teachers should be paid more, I don't hear many arguing they should be paid as well as your average developer.
Damn you for using logic and facts.
My ILEC is CenturyLink, a national company. The neighboring ILEC is actually a locally owned company that is much smaller and is providing much better service.
The point is, even if I wanted wired IP service from a competing ISP, that's not possible because the ILEC owns the copper to my property and the ILEC cannot provide L2 connectivity over its existing infrastructure, and has no plans to upgrade that infrastructure.
Meanwhile, a neighboring, locally owned ILEC is running FTTH to its rural customers...
I haven't spoken enough with the competing ILEC to know if they'd be able to finance their fiber buildout without capturing the revenue from voice and data service on top of their plant.
I don't understand your reference to my state. I agree that we shouldn't make laws for everyone based on the conditions in a particular place.
That's actually a great reason to limit FCC oversight, since it is a federal entity and makes rules that are national in scope...
Why does Verizon have the right to saturate my property with 700mhz energy?
I didn't sell that to them.
If they want to shoot 700mhz energy across (and through!) my house, why don't they have to buy rights to that? If they are preventing me from being able to do anything in my own home with 700mhz because of their harmful emissions, why don't I have any recourse against them?
Nobody would let me park across the street from your house and shine lasers or even flashlights into your windows.
Why is Verizon given this same privilege, albeit in a section of non-visible spectrum?
The current RF energy governance framework we have in the US may not be appropriate. The spectrum licensees certainly benefit from legal protection from competition, and from legal usurpation of my property rights on a massive scale...
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones