Lyft has a very good hiring process. For a driver to be approved, he or she must meet with a current, senior driver called a mentor. This mentor takes an hour or so explaining the way Lyft works, and taking a test ride with the driver. If he or she can't drive, communicate, navigate, or any number of other things, he or she isn't approved. When a driver is ready for this mentoring, the app processes their DMV record. Afterwards, if they are approved, Lyft performs a criminal background check. These checks are done quarterly, so we always know we have safe, reliable drivers on the road
The nice thing is, if you take a Lyft and the car seems janky, you can report that to the support team, and they'll suspend the driver until he or she repairs their car. Tell me any taxi company would do that!
Hate to burst your bubble, but Uber certainly doesn't have a more stringent set of requirements. They don't even have my updated insurance, and it doesn't seem to bother them. But you'll be damn sure Lyft would deactivate me the day my insurance expires
4 hours free. So you can watch 2 games on there, and afterwards you need to log in. So their attempt at getting you hooked instead just pisses you off. I'd be more than glad to use their program to watch the tourney and sit through their ads, but if I need cable to do it, I'll just watch the games on my TV. The reason I want to watch them online is because I pay a ton for a good internet connection with a computer connected to my TV, and don't want to pay $80+ a month for cable on top of it all. Instead now I find myself giving my eyeballs to another service that doesn't restrict my viewing habits so archaically
Are you serious? The kid downloaded, and admitted to downloading 30 songs. Those songs cost a total of $30, not $675,000. So yeah, Mike is writing about it because it is an injustice to be charged a rate 20,000 times the cost of the item infringed.
If the kid had stolen 2 CDs from the store, he would have been fined like $250. Thats the problem with this case, troll
"We've got him just where we want him" Carreon said to himself as he sits in his office lounger. "Inman is on the run, trying to back out of this lawsuit while still being a tough guy, but I'll show him, I'm the crusader for the internet, and I won't let his tyranny continue"
I don't see how that will help. Basically the way I believe the system works; the professor says "I'm going to require this textbook" and they checkmark some pack that includes the online codes. Whether the professor is being lazy, or is ignorant of what he or she is selecting, I don't know. So yes, we know ahead of time what text will be required, but we don't know if we actually need the kit, code included.
I've got one worse for you. Countless times, my booklists have kits that include the textbook and the online code (usually Mastering________). My freshman year, I assumed that we needed the kit since the professors would list them, only to come to class and find out we're not using the online section at all, and the code was a $60+ waste, with no way to resell it.
That uncertainty prevented us from buying used books ahead of time, AND wasted our money on some code we didn't need, all because the teacher was lazy about putting up their book list
As a student of atmospheric science, I can see how misinformed you are about the whole topic. Weather prediction is a very difficult science, but it is not limited by our understanding as much as it is limited by our technology. Weather satellites and weather radar have limited resolution, and our modeling computers are only so powerful. We understand whats going on in the atmosphere, but have no way to collect and process all of the data.
Anyway, our ability to predict the weather has nothing to do with our ability to predict climate and climate effects. Weather and Climate are two totally separate topics. We understand the effects of sulfate aerosols on the stratosphere from the changes in the climate system after large volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo
I am not a supporter of this SPICE project, since the we would have to inject millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere (10 km or higher) constantly, since they're removed within 2 years of injection.
As a college sports fan, these websites were useful to me, as ESPN and the local channels only carry so many games. First off, I don't have cable service; I can't justify paying that kind of money for the few times I watch tv, and the few channels I would watch. Instead, I rely on OTA for football, and some of my college basketball needs. The games on ESPN, or the games that are not picked up by my local stations are now lost to me without these streaming sites.
There is no legal alternative for me to view these events, other than a $1200/yr cable bill, plus a subscription to my favorite team's PPV video stream, which is $10/game. So there you go; you're not converting pirates to legitimate customers, you're just driving us to spend our time/effort/money elsewhere
The 'Bad' entertainment part is the problem for the execs. Millions are gonna pirate, can't stop that, but when the thing they're pirating turns out to be shit, that leaks out to those who were actually going to buy, and thus even less buy. If pirates didn't buy or pirate, then when bad music hits the market, it takes a lot of sales for word to get around that the music sucks
But they shouldn't have this control at all. If I own a dvd, I should be able to play it when I want, wherever I want, for whomever I want. But some lawmakers decided public viewing rights should exist, and wham, there goes my right to use a product that I paid for