Well it's hard to survive without capital if your business can't sell it's service or product, and don't you think a little "reputation capital" can be a benefit?

Maybe I'm inferring sarcasm where you don't mean it. But business don't survive solely on reputation capital, obviously, but poor or no reputation capitial is a hindrance. How much so varies greatly by business type. Personally, I get almost as much work for my ethics as I do my abilities - I certainly get more references because of my character than I would if I was an asshole. That scales upwards for business in the public eye as well. Some businesses don't survive without it. Some thrive because of it. Some are completely unaffected. And it's exactly the kind of move that shows a "do no evil" aspect to the whole Google/book scanning/copyright hub-bub. Public relations is a thriving market sector because it has reputation capital has value. Most days, reputation capital is front page news for somebody.

Not that I'd ever consider it, either, and of course I'm no expert. But if I really felt the need, I'd be comfortable taking out expensive light bulbs and replacing them with cheaper ones. That sort of thing wouldn't be an issue for us - both times we've put our house up for sale, we've swapped out bulbs for bright incandescents anyway. And most of our home lighting is freestanding, neither of us enjoying the light from ceiling fixtures. But frankly, we've just sold the house. A few lightbulbs aren't going to make a difference, no matter what they cost.

All that said, this is why the inclusions and exclusions list is important. One example I tripped over is that while it is assumed that a wall mounted mirror is a fixture, a wall mounted TV is not. But if the notion of "attached to the property" is taken literally, a case might be made for the TV being a fixture. If you want it with the house, include it and if you're taking it with you - exclude it. Caveat emptor, and caveat venditor, too. Not that any of it is my expertise, except that I like to live without being sued.

Another blog post, from a lawyer in Australia this time, that seems to say the same thing as everything else I found (but more clearly): http://www.propertyupdate.com.au/articles/104/1/Fixture-Fixation/Page1.html

Flamebait? I'd rather sit in a dark living room than one lit by CFL's, (and I do). I use them selectively, too, and for pretty much the same reasons. As well, the last town I lived in had horribly inconsistent power levels, the house was 80+ years old with some knob and tube wiring - CFL bulbs died fast and expensively.

I looked up chattel and real estate in Ontario, where I'm from. It's pretty much as you've found - if it's a "built in", it's real estate, but if it's stand-alone, it's chattels and you can take it.

From a real estate agent's blog, not a legal document. http://ontariorealestatesource.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-are-chattels.html

It could have. It would have been different, and not necessarily better. I've watched 2001 a few times, and only all the way through twice. I'm not always in the mood, but when I am it's slow pace and quiet are perfect. The pacing is an important part of the narrative. It's one of my favourite films, and like most of my favourite films, albums, games and such, I'm not always in the mood for it.

Well off topic and far too pedantic, but what the hell. A blog at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html references Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (MWCDEU) to point out that "less" has been used before plural, countable nouns since the time of King Alfred. It was the opinion of Robert Baker, written in "Remarks on the English Language" in 1770, that "fewer" was preferable. It is unknown how this became the rule, but usage then and now do not conform to the rule.

From the MWCDEU:

There's a scan of the MWCEDU available from the blog post. Make of it what you will, I found it interesting.

We wouldn't take credit away from Benjamin Franklin. Nor for introducing the French to potatoes. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/2009/07/03/ben-franklin-patriot-foodie/ - I think lacrosse is the next thing on the national "to-do".

For me, it wouldn't be the online avatar dance, but it is definitely and "Really" be that overlap of interests and perspectives, the feeling of being understood and accepted that is attractive about the lady of the house. That's not the same as tickling my sexual fancy, that's making me want her to be the one tickling it. And why can't that come from online avatar dancing? She said once that the first time she knew she loved me was when I got out of the car to clear shopping carts left out of parking spots away and put them in that shed (so that other drivers could park without dinging their car). The "moment" can come at the damndest times, you never know when.

The missus and I would play games between 3 or 5 nights a week - not always online, mind you. That doesn't mean that we spend all the time between 6:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m playing games. We may only play for a couple of hours. One or two nights are weekend nights, and if those nights are available we have more time then. We also keep up with the chores, take walks once or twice a week along the river, keep up our jobs ... you get the point. As you hint, the trick is not exactly in what you do 4 nights a week or so (TV, games, whatever...), it's balancing that with what needs to be done. That defines near enough to moderation for me - as distinct from excess, when the chores don't get done and the crawling of skin sets in.

We did eventually give up WoW, for loss of interest. It's not the game that ruins relationships. It's the devotion to time-sinks at the exclusion of your relationship, and yar, you betcha WoW facilitates that. So do sports teams, knitting, music, internet surfing ... many things will do it. Online games are more encouraging, however, with that danged carrot in front of your nose all the time. But WoW or not, the relationships that died because of WoW would have found another death in the game's absence. If any online game is more appealing than your partner, you should be looking for another partner.

+1 Informed? ;)

For remarkably small values of "ALWAYS". I have clients who not only refuse to encourage their customers to upgrade their browser, they refuse to upgrade from IE6 themselves. Knowing that much of my billable time is specific to IE6 issues, they'll pay that premium willingly - or, not hire me at all.

Easy to do, and if it fits the clients profile to do that - and they're cool with it. But if I want to get paid, the site better work in IE6 the way the client wants it to.

My "favourite" of their catalog changes at a whim, but objectively everything really did fall into place with Dark Side. Production, writing and performance all fit together flawlessly, or as near to it as any other record. There are records and artists I enjoy more, but the coherence of Dark Side of the Moon continues to impress me whenever I consider it. Of course, part of the reason why it worked so well was the time taken to create the work - "fall into place" is an understatement!

Oh, come ON ... you're a composer and you don't realize that musicians beg, borrow and steal from each other? It has always been that way, even back in Beethoven's day. Just do your homework. And I'm not referring only to the absorption of earlier works that informs a composer, but also to deliberate lifting and themes and motifs for reinvention. But there was also accreditation, and the work was interpreted by the "thief" - not merely rewritten to score sheets and signed falsely.

The quote comes from Picasso - "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Good artists, in other words, mimic the story and art available to them, and the great ones take those concepts and ideas and go somewhere new with them.

Of course, Picasso stole the idea of the quote:

It SHOULD be that our music, art, science, and other thought gets out into the world, to have the ideas be extended, reshaped, and built upon into new things. (The alternative is to start farming composers in Skinner boxes!) That's not to say that we should work so the world can photocopy our efforts and by mere marketing profit by them, nor that a composer shouldn't be able to control who was the rights to use or publish their works for commercial purposes. But whatever regulations we have in place to protect musicians, scientists, authors, inventors and everybody else from theft of their work should also allow those ideas to be shared. Copyrights should start more narrowly and more quickly fade, patents should expire, etc. And I write as a musician/composer, which apparently gives some magical weight to my opinions, as if I'm the only type of person affected by these issues. Copyright is far too stringent and protective these days, and neither the creators nor the public are benefiting.

There are plenty of non-RIAA options for music. Mostly, directly purchasing from the artists themselves, but there are other distribution channels as well.