Dude, you're at the wrong bank. Between business and personal accounts I've banked with a half-dozen different places and don't remember one that would screw me the way you've described.

I DO take issue with one local bank, in that they always post the withdrawals for the day in descending order by amount. One day this resulted in 7 overdrafts, when it would have been only 1 if they had posted the debits in reverse order. However, that same bank ALWAYS posts deposits first, then withdrawals. If I go on a shopping spree over the weekend, spending more than what's in my checking account, as long as I make a deposit by 3 PM Monday everything is fine.

The other place where I currently do business is a credit union. They post transactions in real time throughout the day. That includes deposits - if I know a bill is coming that will overdraw my account, I make a deposit before it hits and I'm good to go.

Banks are definitely out there to hit you with as many fees as they can. They are, after all, for-profit businesses. As long as you learn the system and play by the rules you shouldn't get hit with many.

Based on the scenario you describe, the only way I can see that it would work out the way you describe is if the bank is not crediting your deposits to your account immediately. If your bank is doing that to you on a $200 deposit then you need a new bank. I've had money held before on larger checks (several thousand, or more than a few hundred from out of state individuals) but never $200. Even when the deposits were held it was never more than a day or two.

Theoretically once you fill out the paper at one bar you're good to go anywhere that takes Unicard. Unfortunately lots of places don't upload their data in a timely manner (or sometimes not at all) so you may have to do it several times before you're in the system. FWIW, most of my table-waiting experience was also in Denton County. I also spent some time working in nearby cities Arlington and Dallas (Tarrant and Dallas counties, respectively), neither of which had the Unicard hassle at the time.

In Texas, cities can decide to be wet or dry. In a "dry" city, a restaurant that serves alcohol must be a "private club." It's not so much a "private club" in that there are significant membership requirements, anyone can join if they're of age and there's no membership fee or ongoing responsibilities. I'm sure it's just another way for the city to tax the restaurant - how much does it cost to get a "private club" permit?

So if you're eating out and you want to have a beer, you must present a club membership card. Most restaurants have signed up with a company called Unicard. If you sign up at one Unicard restaurant...er..."private club" then you are automatically a member everywhere that takes Unicard. Years ago you actually got a separate membership card. Now it's associated with your driver's license number. When I was waiting tables the computer would refuse to let me input a drink order until I swiped a customer's Unicard (or driver's license). I'm sure that the computer was checking with the Unicard database to make sure that the person was actually a member. Was it tracking them? I have no idea. Probably so, in case the restaurant needed to look back and prove that a certain customer was in fact a member of the club when they bought that drink. Aside from the inherent lawsuit risks of serving alcohol, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is known for being ruthless and handing down VERY expensive fines to the restaurant and the waiter for any infraction.

A significant difference here is that Unicard is a private company, not a government entity. I'm sure they'll be quick to share their database if asked by a court, especially if it involves "terrists" or kiddie porn.

Disclaimer: IANAW (any more). I haven't waited tables for several years and I rarely drink when I'm out. Things may be different now.

I think you're confusing Samba with Sambo. Last I checked, Samba usually refers to a dance and/or musical style from Latin America (specifically Brazil, I believe). Sambo, on the other hand, is a racial slur indicating mixed race and also the title character of a children's book called Little Black Sambo. Whether the book or the slur came first is up for debate.

It's not that hard to understand, really. The Intoxilyzer folks are more concerned with making (more) money than they are with making the world a better place, writing better code or producing a better breathalyzer.

Most open-source software authors produce code because they LIKE it. Maybe they get warm fuzzies out of making the world better with their application, more likely they just like writing code. Only a very small percentage actually make money at writing open source code - and most of that income comes from either customized versions of their software or from selling related hardware and support services.

Most software companies (including companies such as this one that sell hardware with embedded custom soft/firmware) produce code to make money. If they release the code as open source, someone else can take it and produce a similar product that functions the same and costs less. Yes, you can put licensing restrictions in that prevent that, but those restrictions are very rarely enforced. Unless you patent your methods (a whole other can of worms) someone can take your methods, re-write the code differently and release it with no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Basically, open-sourcing your code allows others to capitalize on the time you spent in R&D. The open source movement considers this a good thing. Most commercial software companies consider it a bad thing. There's room for both in the world.

Dude, why the hostility?

As I said, and as you quoted:

Note, I said "not...any more than...a CD or downloaded MP3." Yes, fair use applies to sheet music just as it applies to CDs and MP3s. Archive, quote it for educational purposes, sure. While I'm not familiar with the intimate details of the fair use doctrine, I've seen plenty of copyright violations that would certainly not be included - band directors photocopying entire arrangements from their buddies' libraries, choir directors purchasing one copy of a part and making 100 copies for their students, bands making (and selling) recordings of other people's music without obtaining the proper rights. I've played several professional engagements where I was handed photocopies of the original parts because the venue couldn't/wouldn't spend the money on the parts but instead copied them from somewhere else. On multiple occasions I've been handed a "listening CD" before a gig to help me learn the music. You could argue that last one as fair use because it's for educational purposes but it's questionable to say the least.

I'm aware that there are many cases where photocopies would be the only solution. Music goes out of print, sometimes you need a part RIGHT NOW because someone left it at home before the gig. If a student loses the third page of his part and the band director makes a copy of it from his friend's library then I have no moral problem with it but I don't think it's legal under fair use or otherwise. I don't completely agree with the laws as they currently are, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Since you started the pissing match about qualifications and credentials I suppose I'll participate:
I spent 5 years at North Texas (a school you should know if you're remotely involved in teaching music theory) as a jazz saxophone major, 4 years teaching at various schools around the North Texas area. In my current day job I interact with band directors on a daily basis. My wife recently left her job as an elementary music teacher in public school after 7 years. I've been playing professionally for over a decade. While I'm not an expert I have a pretty good clue of what I'm talking about.

Sheet music for musicians actually falls under very similar copyright laws. If you go down to the retail sheet music store and buy a piece of sheet music, you are legally not allowed to photocopy that sheet music any more than you're legally allowed to copy a CD or downloaded MP3 or any other book for that matter. If your copy of the media (usually paper, more recently downloaded PDF files) is destroyed or rendered useless then you're generally SOL and must purchase it again, just like with CDs or paid MP3s.

If you run a group, such as a school band or orchestra, you legally should buy a separate copy of the sheet music for each member of the group or make them share. While performance rights are generally not restricted you are not legally allowed to make a recording of your performance without securing permission from the publisher (which usually involves money changing hands).

Some publishers will make other concessions as part of their standard package. For example, when my wife taught elementary music she subscribed to a magazine that gave her new music for her students once a month. Part of the subscription was a license to copy the magazine as much as she wanted for her school, but not for anyone else (even other teachers in the same district). In this area at least, all of the major contests require that you provide the judges with original scores to the music (not photocopies) so that they can follow along. This provides reasonable assurance to the judges and the contest people that you've actually paid for the music like you were supposed to. If you have some other sort of agreement with the publisher then they require proof of that (my wife photocopied the license page out of the magazine).

As a general rule musicians realize the work and effort that goes into composing music and are happy to pay for it and help pad the composer's royalty check. Many band/orchestra directors ignore these laws and photocopy to their heart's content (especially when their students are prone to lost sheet music) just like many individuals freely copy MP3s. It's not uncommon even in a professional setting to be handed photocopies of music rather than the originals. Enforcement is VERY lax.

I'll leave others to debate the merits of the law, but those are the laws.

SSL certificates expire every year (or two or three). If the browser popped up a message to every user when the certificate was updated due to expiration, it would frighten many users away - users who know nothing more than "look for the padlock" if that. I think the idea of the browser checking the certificate for changes is definitely valid, but you'd have to be careful about just when you put out that popup.

I haven't dealt with a single company that requires paper payment. Most major service providers have payment forms on their website where I can give them my credit card number or banking information and they take the payment that way. In most cases this is free to me, somehow the electric company gets away with charging a $4.95 "convenience fee" if I pay online. I pay most of my bills through online banking. If my bank knows the company that I'm paying (which includes most large companies and all of my local utilities) then I select the company from a list, give my account number and my bank sends the money via EFT. If my bank doesn't know the company, I just plug in the correct mailing address and my bank mails a check on my behalf.

What I would like to see is the ability to simply send money to another bank account. I understand it's very easy to do this in Europe. In the States I can send money anywhere I want, but the transfer costs me $25 (regardless of size). With fees like that it would only make sense when transferring multiple thousands of dollars at once.

I disagree. I sold some used motorcycle parts a few years ago, clearly stating in the auction that the parts were used and taking very close-up detailed pictures of the parts. Despite that, one buyer left me negative feedback because the item was "scratched." I can think of a dozen other hypothetical situations where I would want to leave negative feedback for a buyer, most involving the buyer not reading the auction or trying to scam a refund after the fact for some BS reason. If a customer is consistently an idiot then he deserves a bad rating so sellers can stay away from him. In the past, eBay would threaten to disable accounts with very poor feedback (I don't know if they ever did). That could save a lot of people a lot of grief.

That's not to say that there aren't dishonest sellers out there. Those sellers deserve negative feedback. Regardless, without any accountability for the buyer, sellers can easily get screwed over.