If the cheapest you can get them is $200 it doesn't matter that someone else can get it for $5.
When dealing with illegal substances or information the markets are rather fragmented and you work with what is available to you.
Hi, you've missed the point of my post entirely. The point is not that the people involved were charging too much. The point is that, ultimately, someone could very likely have paid as little as $5 in order to commit fraud and totally destroy your financial stability, at least for a time. The fact that the market price for such data is so low shows just how saturated the market is for people who want to buy this kind of stuff.
The problem isn't the loans in a practical sense. The real problem is companies driving degree inflation. Companies drove us here because a 4 year degree student is "better" even if it doesn't really matter.
Companies don't drive degree inflation, supply and demand drive degree inflation. If companies couldn't recruit college graduates at a reasonable cost because there weren't enough of them, they'd have to look at qualified people without a degree. But, with the government these days pushing the idea that a college education is a right and the long term stated goal of having 100% college graduates, the supply of college graduates is so high that they fill up all the jobs that actually need a degree and there is still a large qualified pool of graduates willing to work for jobs that don't really need one.
Now, given the supply is there, and when you're interviewing the the average entry level job candidate 90% of them are going to look more or less the same, why wouldn't you hire the one that has the extra line item of a B.A. or B.S.? Sure if a non-degree holder stands out, you'd hire them, but "stands out" by definition means they are the exception, not the rule.
I see nothing in "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion" that suggests endorsement by the Tolkien Estate, check.
and that's where you're wrong. By referencing Tolkien at all, You are indicating that Tolkien was watching Evangelion instead of reading, which puts it into the direct sponship of Evangelion.
Buzz!! Wrong Read the sentence again. Where in the sentence does it suggest that Tolkien was watching Evangelion? The sentence implies that if the person reading the button was reading Tolkien, he should know that the wearer of the button was watching Evangelion instead. In essence, the wearer of the button is suggesting that watching Evangelion is a better use of his time than reading Tolkien. Nothing in the sentence links Tolkien to support or not support Evangelion in any way or form. You fail at basic reading comprehension.
Professional music won't go away, but if you pick on a particular band or orchestra that is popular at the moment, that almost certainly will go out of fashion.
Most artists are fads, sure, but there are a few from each generation that are timeless. Johnny Cash, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, are still considered good music, even today. The question is whether FB has that kind of staying power. I guess we'll find out.
Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.
Different business models. Android is aiming for it to be installed on everything, so the Android device market is not designed to be a high margin businesses. Since there are no iOS makers except iPhone, they charge what they want and people are forced to pay. Their net profits has exceeded that of the Android market this past year despite a smaller market share. As long as what Apple disciples are willing to pay allows them to net more money than an open system, there's no incentive for them to change business models.
If Apple's market share shrinks to the point that serious handheld app developers no longer feel to make an iPhone version of their apps at all, maybe at that point Apple would be forced to switch, but until then, they're raking in the bucks.
There was a time when the algorithm for testing Microsoft keys was that the sum of the digits was divisible by 7 (I think).
There was a time when I found that the Microsoft keys were interchangeable among products. I was able to install Windows 95 using the license key from Microsoft Works, I think.
I would imagine this was because whether a number was divisible by 7 was not dependent on the application.
Microsoft should patch windows to fail to resolve any DNS requests for apple.com and any websites dedicated to promoting Apple products. In addition, HTC could break apple related websites on all of their phones. Then, when Apple complains, just reply "Wait, that's not ok? But, we were just following your lead, asshole!"
Remember when Network Solutions tried to hijack all the failed DNS requests to redirect to their webpage? The community backlash was terrible. People started planning on coding changes to Mozilla to block that from happening, as well as other technical solutions. Apple needs to remember 1 thing about technology. In the long run, you play nice, or you lose, because when you piss everyone off, people will find the weakest link in the chain and screw you. No one holds the keys to all the layers of technologies that have to work together for something work, especially when that something is a communications device and must play with others.
From the wisdom of Princess Leia herself, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
You can't eat your morality, and if you're starving, and you've got a gun, and that guy over there has bread, well...
I'll put it this way. A person, right now, who is starving, who kills a man to take his food is a murderer and deserves to be convicted, sent to jail for life, and possibly executed, depending on your beliefs on that issue. We don't give murderers a pass now because they were hungry.
A person who does it in a post-apocalypse situation is no different. If we do not tolerate our hungry and homeless from taking by force now, what makes people doing so after disaster strikes OK? Perhaps it's because suddenly it becomes possible where you're the hungry one, and you'd like to re-write the rules to make it OK for you to kill to get food? That's a bunch of crap. No, doing that is NOT OK, and no amount of rationalizing makes it a moral choice.
Hell, one could argue doing so post-apocalypse is even worse because you're taking from someone who can't easily replace what was lost.
Just where the line of "sufficiently" is drawn depends on everyone, but you're making a classic
No, I'm not, people may be sometimes good, and sometimes bad, but a person who believes that there is ANY circumstance where it is OK to kill a man for his possessions is unprincipled. He is a man willing to rationalize away morality for his own good.
Don't you mean Guns/Ammo then food, water, shelter?
With the first 2 you can get anything after that....
Morality does not go out the window based on circumstances. I suppose if you are a thief and an armed robber in this situation, then you are probably one now, but you are restrained only by the thought of jail. You either have principles or you do not. If they are principles only when convenient, then they really are not principles at all, are they?
Why? Seriously, what benefit is there banning DSLRs over other cameras? It can't be the existence of telephoto lenses, because there are lots of compacts that have large zooms. Maybe it's a war on artful, quality photos?
Ok, seriously, people need to stop talking like a DSLR and a compact one is essentially the same. You have clearly not tried to shoot photos at extreme distances in low light. The difference between a quality DSLR in the hands of an expert versus a compact ones can be very extreme depending on environmental factors. Here in the states, the place I've seen it come up on the most is at concerts, where a DSLR with a good lens will make the pictures appear like you've got front row seats when you're really up in the balcony, and the auto-focusing compact cameras simply cannot keep up with that, as their smaller lenses have to compensate via slower shutter speeds making the images blurry. We need to at least admit that there is a theoretical point to banning DSLR's if you're trying to prevent espionage.
Don't get me wrong. Realistically speaking, the Kuwait ban is worthless, since anyone willing to risk their lives for espionage probably is willing to chance it with a DSLR and a fake media badge, but I'm sure to them it looked good on paper.