No, it doesn't. Charitable giving is a deduction, not a credit. Deductions reduce your total, not earned, income.
Prodigy was a joint venture between IBM and Sears, in 1984. One of the things you could do with it was online shopping. In 1988 it hosted what is considered the first eCommerce company in the US, PC Flowers.
What a crock. Everyone has their own reasons for doing whatever they do. Some people do good things to please another person, some do them because they believe in an afterlife, some do them for their own egos, some do them to look good. Who the fuck cares what the motivation is? Important things are being done, and people's lives are better for it.
Then there are people like the author, and you, who try to build up their own pitiful egos by tearing down others. The only difference in the two approaches is that the philanthropist actually accomplishes something positive for others, and you don't.
A favorite target of the 'inequity' crowd seems to be Walmart. And why not, after all their average employee makes about $15K/year, while the CEO makes $26M. Until you do math, that is. There are 2.2M employees. Paying the CEO the same as everyone else, assuming you could find someone to do the job, would result in an extra $10 PER YEAR for each employee. Man, that is sure going to make their lives better.
I agree with most of what you said, but think you unfairly slammed Make A Wish. $58M is about 1% of what the NIH alone spends on cancer research every year. Is an extra 1% really going to make that big of a difference? People and businesses who donate to Make A Wish know they are not funding research, they think they are making some poor dying kid happy for a little while. What is wrong with that? And if you are going to criticize how people choose to spend their money, there are FAR bigger targets. For instance, how much was spent last year to get the latest shiny smart phone, or on video games, music, movies, and sporting events.
Go fuck yourself, you boot-licking scumbag. Snowden is a hero who told the American people about billions of felonies committed against us every day.
The judge understands perfectly well, it is you and many other posters who do not understand. This is happening pretrial. The only things in play now are matters of law.
The DMCA says that if you notify subscribers when you are notified of claimed infringement, and if after repeated notifications you cut them off, then you can not be sued for facilitating infringement. Cox claims they get this protection, but they admit they did not do the above, as you yourself stated. Therefore, as a matter of law, they don't get the protection.
So what does that all mean? Well, first of all it does not mean that the judge is biased or has made an error. It does not mean that the judge has sided with anyone. It does not mean that Cox has lost the case. And it certainly doesn't mean that the judge doesn't understand. What it does mean is that there is an actual dispute as to the facts of the case, and disputes of facts are to resolved by juries, not judges. It very well may be that when a jury hears the case they decide that BMG was in fact unreasonable, and therefore they lose the suit.
Nope, no evidence of bias. Here is what he said about the EFF's brief:
I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical.
See that bit about 'adds absolutely nothing helpful at all'? That is why it was rejected, which is a perfectly valid reason. An amicus brief is supposed to provide some HELPFUL legal information, not just be a bunch of whining about why someone does not like a law.
Judge probably thinks the internet is a series of tubes....
In other words, there is plenty of evidence of YOU being biased.
No, it is not a 'thing', because if it was a 'thing' nothing would ever procede. It is not unusual for there to be lots of pre-trial motions filed, etc. Remember the SCO v IBM case? All that stuff was pre-trail, and it went on for years. And in every one of those motions, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. That in no way indicates bias on the part of the judge, even if every ruling goes one way. His job is, after all, to judge.
Bias would be if the judge had some reason to favor one party over the other, and that reason had nothing to do with what is presented. There is no evidence of bias here, except that he issued a ruling some people don't like. According to those people, the only possible reason anyone could disagree with them is if they were biased, paid off, etc.
Well, part of it is that even a small payment can still incur a psychologically large cost. If each user post here on
Something similar happens when people have metered or capped Internet usage compared to at least nominally unlimited usage.
You really can't avoid this problem unless the micropayment is so small that it is likely not worth the cost to implement. I suppose if I knew that a year's worth of micro payments for me, for everything I use, was no more than about a dollar a year in total, it wouldn't be so much that it would feel like I was wasting money on the Internet. But because the average user doesn't want to spend a noticeable amount ever, and there really aren't that many users in comparison to sites, the resulting pie of money wouldn't be much to split up. (Especially once you reduce the amount to account for lower average incomes elsewhere in the world)
I'm surprised that the emails stopped. I always figured AM was spamming random address just like half a dozen other dating scam sites.
I got a threat from these clowns. I take it about as seriously as those douchebags who say they want my help to claim their 8 million dollar inheritance from their deceased parents in Nigeria.
Some scumbags were selling it back in the 90's, calling it "the tracker" and claiming that it could detect drugs.
A few fanatics?
There are Muslim terrorist attacks practically every day.
There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet. If each of these would commit one terrorist attack once in their lifetime, there would be about 60000 attacks per day - a bit less than 1 per second.
My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner