It was an ultimatum from Apple, accept our terms or your music won't be on our service. They negotiated from a position of power, they ran into an artist who also has power and not only didn't accept Apple's ultimatum but brought to bear the power of public opinion and succeeded in changing Apple's position. She deserves a lot of credit for doing what she did.
Having the legal right to do something does not mean people don't have the right to protest. Taylor Swift spoke up and Apple changed. A much better approach than your suggestion that people just STFU.
The terms of the loan spell out the consequences for defaulting. You will have to give back the house and depending on what state you live in you can either then wash your hands of the remaining amount owed or will owe the difference between what the lender can sell the house for and what you owed. With a student loan the lender can't repossess your education so student loan contracts specify that you can't abrogate the debt. If you don't like the terms, don't borrow the money.
He's 58 years old, if he had an MS in EE he would have made enough money to pay off his student loans 30 years ago. He's a societal leech who denigrates people who sell shoes to make a living or have to work hard every day to put a meal on the table.
Masters degree in Medieval History, bitches endlessly about the student debt she has piled up and is currently enjoying herself on a trip to Europe. It's just a shame that people have to choose between paying their bills and enjoying a few weeks in Italy.
The real problem is that it is difficult to replace the glass It it was simple to replace the relative low cost of replacement would mean the occasional breakage wouldn't be a significant problem.
I agree. Perhaps the author believes Google should not only try to figure out what is and isn't spam but also delete it so we never see it. If so, I disagree as I much prefer Google's excellent spam filter that still allows me to wander through the spam folder looking for something that it miscategorized and train Google to no longer consider it as spam.
That's only one possible implementation, it doesn't have to be done that way but there is no money in it for the carriers if my phone can talk directly to your phone. http://www.radio-electronics.c... It can work without carriers, the carriers will want to control it by building authorization protocols into it so they can make money off of it.
You would be better off buying $150 worth of equipment than tying up two cell phones with monthly fees to connect two separate networks.
No, it doesn't use bluetooth. If it was using bluetooth there would be no need for the carriers to be involved at all. https://www.qualcomm.com/media...
" Phones will be able to “talk” directly to other mobile devices" Sounds like P2P to me. The carrier doesn't control the spectrum, they have a license to use the spectrum. Am I violating any laws or regulations by powering up a cell phone that doesn't have an active carrier subscription?
This does not apply to tourists. This does not apply to someone pulling out their video camera to video the family frolicking through the wilderness. Here is the definition of "still photography" that the proposed regulation uses: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/re... "Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities." Does that sound that bad? You'll also need a permit for commercial filming, if you are a business and want to make a film set in a certain designated wilderness areas you'll need a permit. Stop the presses!
What do they do with the bombs they carry, gently release them?
Yet if you zoom into that "dark rectangle" you see that it is not in fact a uniformly dark rectangle but has data in it. So what is the significance of that darker area, why would faking it be done and is it in fact an unreasonable set of data? Or is it enough to look at pictures of clouds and note that some look like lions, some like tigers, others bears and announce OH MY!
You believe that someone who sabotages someone else's career with malicious slander wouldn't have legal liability? I strongly disagree. On the other hand, depending on the wording of the job offer, it is entirely possible that it would be retracted without legal liability at anytime prior to start of employment. In many states firing someone doesn't require any cause, your fired because it's Tuesday and I want to fire someone would be perfectly legal. The employer who revoked his offer was in Mississippi and Mississippi is an "at will" state so revoking or firing someone because you don't like what you read about them on a peer review site would be legally permissible. Thus he likely would not have a case against the people who retracted the job offer.