Of course the industry doesn't allow anyone to digitize a 50-year-old movie; they reserve the right to (not) do that themselves. If you volunteered you'd get laughed out of the building, or more likey, be arrested.
If they did allow it, I'm sure they'd have (you'll excuse the expression) many takers...
...although it is a bit hard to parse "no business cannot refuse to take cash", I think you meant to say "all businesses must accept cash"? That obviously false.
"Legal tender for all debts" means that cash *may* be used, not that it *must* be accepted by all parties. Businesses and people have every right to require any form of payment they wish, and the customer retains the right to shop elsewhere. If *everyone* spontaneously decided to stop taking cash, then your greenbacks would be of little use, while still being so very "legal".
That only makes sense; turn it around and you must admit that a credit card is certainly "legal" to use, but it's clear that not everyone will accept one.
Personally, I never use cash. If they don't take the card, I don't shop there. Why would I want to pay cash when Visa is giving me a free loan for 25 days?
"...INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE"
I find the report quite "inciteful", because we wouldn't want anyone to "insight" anything now would we?
I just wonder if the author ever passed 9th-grade English. But I guess it's good to know that the educationally-challenged can rise to such a high office.
You are saying that you would like to live in a world where someone should get 18 years in jail for the "crime" of making a few people feel very very bad?
Why stop there? Why not make alcoholism a capital offense?
On the other hand, maybe you should attack the real problem, which appears to me to be the manufacturers of the strange devices these victims used to access the Internet, ...which apparently force their users to visit the most personally offensive Facebook pages possible, and simultaneously disable their OFF switches.
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Looking a gift horse in the mouth...
Just sayin'...
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Only way to grasp actual costs.
If they did allow it, I'm sure they'd have (you'll excuse the expression) many takers...
On the post: EU Politician Wants Internet Surveillance Built Into Every Operating System
That's why it's so hard...
Stupid cops!
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
You can say that...
On the post: Wireless Carriers Finally Cave On Overage Fees; Reluctantly Agree To Stop Treating Customers Like ATMs
Never met MY mom...
On the post: Innovation In Education: Changing The Pace
Can we just pay for the site...
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
I wonder...
Foolish question, I know. There's only one thing worse than censorship: Working within the system.
Woe is us.
On the post: NYPD Finally Admit That Police Broke The Rules With Pepper Spraying; May Slap Anthony Bologna On The Wrist
Be Fair...
...and a pepper-mill to the lion.
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
You got it backwards...
"Legal tender for all debts" means that cash *may* be used, not that it *must* be accepted by all parties. Businesses and people have every right to require any form of payment they wish, and the customer retains the right to shop elsewhere. If *everyone* spontaneously decided to stop taking cash, then your greenbacks would be of little use, while still being so very "legal".
That only makes sense; turn it around and you must admit that a credit card is certainly "legal" to use, but it's clear that not everyone will accept one.
Personally, I never use cash. If they don't take the card, I don't shop there. Why would I want to pay cash when Visa is giving me a free loan for 25 days?
On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right -- The Internet Is Our Enemy
The only problem with free speech...
On the post: US Citizen Facing 15 Years In Jail For Linking From His Blog To An Unauthorized Bio Of Thai King
Re: Re:
Or vice-versa for that matter.
On the post: EA Sues EA Over The EA Trademark
Hey, I resemble that remark!
On the post: NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
Incision
I find the report quite "inciteful", because we wouldn't want anyone to "insight" anything now would we?
I just wonder if the author ever passed 9th-grade English. But I guess it's good to know that the educationally-challenged can rise to such a high office.
On the post: Monsanto Wins Patent Dispute Against Farmer Who Bought Legal Seeds
Speaking of manure...
On the post: Arthur Alan Wolk Settles Lawsuits With Various Sites
Re: Re: Re: Underlawyered?
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re: Science is not done by show of hands.
I will agree with it for the same reason I always agree with the statement, "These pants don't make me look fat, do they?"
On the post: Internet Troll Jailed In The UK For Being A Jerk Online
Why stop there? Why not make alcoholism a capital offense?
On the other hand, maybe you should attack the real problem, which appears to me to be the manufacturers of the strange devices these victims used to access the Internet, ...which apparently force their users to visit the most personally offensive Facebook pages possible, and simultaneously disable their OFF switches.
On the post: Kellogg's Stakes Claim To Toucans, Mayan Imagery; Issues Cease-and-Desist To Guatemalan Non-Profit
Sounds familiar...
On the post: Wasn't The PATRIOT Act Supposed To Be About Stopping Terrorism?
"It's the drugs..."
On the post: Wasn't The PATRIOT Act Supposed To Be About Stopping Terrorism?
I don't get it...
Next >>