GwifiMeter forum

cejy66vd

Trois s ont réalisé leur première opération obligataire. Ces émissions ont été précédées d'une tournée [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/louboutin.php]louboutin pas cher[/url] européenne de [url=http://www.eastscotinvest.co.uk/mulberry.html]mulberry outlet[/url] présentation aux investisseurs pour qu'ils aient le temps de s' à [url=http://www.rivaluta.it/hot/hogan.asp]hogan outlet[/url] ces nouvelles signatures et disposent des autorisations nécessaires.
Le Monde.fr a le plaisir de vous la lecture de cet article habituellement [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/airjordan.php]jordan pas cher[/url] réservé aux abonnés du Monde.fr.Profitez de tous les articles réservés du Monde.fr en
La première a été lancée, le 17 mai, par la Société foncière lyonnaise (SFL). En juin 2010, le marché bruissait déjà de rumeurs sur son émission inaugurale [url=http://www.rivaluta.it/css/moncler.html]moncler outlet[/url] - il aura fallu la notation, intervenue en mars 2011. Le BBB - décroché auprès de Standard and Poor's place les obligations au dernier cran de la catégorie investissement et a [url=http://www.vivid-host.com/barbour.htm]www.vivid-host.com/barbour.htm[/url] permis [url=http://www.rathmell-arch.co.uk/hollister.html]hollister uk[/url] de 500 millions [url=http://www.mylnefieldanalysis.co.uk/barbour.html]barbour outlet[/url] d'euros remboursables dans cinq ans assortis d'un coupon de 4,625 %, soit une prime de risque de 1,80 %.
Ces trois opérations ont été des [url=http://www.bornoverseas.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=151416][/url] succès : la demande fut quatre fois supérieure à [url=http://www.re-tek.co.uk/abercrombie.html]abercrombie uk[/url] l'offre pour SFL ; le prix de l'obligation Bolloré a progressé ; le papetier suédois a pu plus de 150 investisseurs intéressés par sa signature.
Enfin, le 19 mai, le papetier suédois SCA a emprunté 600 millions d'euros à cinq ans. La prime de risque s'inscrivait à 0,78 %, mais pour une notation de la catégorie investissement (BBB+ par Standard and Poor's et Baa1 par Moody's). Le coupon est de 3,625 %.
A aussi le succès de l'émission inaugurale de PagesJaunes SA lancée le 16 mai. Longue à , elle avait contribué à les investisseurs en appétit gr?ce à un rendement de 9,003 % pour des obligations à sept ans.
fran?aises comme Renault et Casino.
Les investisseurs ont aussi été sollicités pour la première fois par le conglomérat fran?ais Bolloré qui, [url=http://www.eikitsu.com/viewthread.php?tid=40663&extra=]www.mansmanifesto.com En baisse Danone[/url] lui, ne s'est pas encombré [url=http://www.achbanker.com/home.php]hollister[/url] d'une notation, ce qui lui a co?té une prime de risque de 2,5 points de base pour 350 millions d'euros remboursables [url=http://bbs.clady.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=99670][/url] dans cinq ans avec [url=http://www.rathmell-arch.co.uk/hollister.html]hollister outlet[/url] un coupon de 5,375 %. Deux semaines plus t?t, [url=http://www.mylnefieldanalysis.co.uk/barbour.html]barbour factory shop[/url] Christian Dior, la holding du groupe LVMH, avait payé une prime de 1,05 % pour des obligations de même maturité sans plus de notation.

cejy66vd · Posted: Thu 11:25, 12 Sep 2013 Post subject:

By:
When you enter a restaurant you are not required to pay for bad food, so why be required to pay for seeing a poor film? Nobody is obligated to pay the artist anything if nobody wants the media. And when people do pay it isn't even as much for the cost of [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] the [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] materials and work that went into it, but more of a desire to see more of the work. Downloading 'illegal' music or 'illegal' movies is not copyright infringement on the basis that any other industry allows for sampling of quality before payment. Also nobody's rights are being violated by doing so therefore I see no moral reason why file sharing could be illegal.
When you go to a restaurant and order, say chicken fettuccine alfredo since it will work best in the example, it's possible for the cheese and chicken and oil to be prepared in such a disastrous way that it smells and tastes like vomit. Of [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] course you are not expected to pay for the vomit but you needed the whole thing to be presented to you anyway to be able to tell it was good or vomit [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] on the assumption, in any decent restaurant, that you didn't have to pay for it, or they could make you something else.
And if you are about to buy a $20-30k [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] car that you will drive for years of course you can drive it in an practical use scenario to know if it will suit your needs. There are no strings attached, it doesn't cost anything, and you get the experience of the full performance.
Now look at movie theaters. I've been given rain [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] checks for projection problems before, but typically for high grossing action films you aren't getting your five to ten dollars back, they'll just think your cheating them. And if you rent a movie, it's [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] still a dollar or more without refund, and downloading a movie online will not have refunds either. If that isn't dissatisfying enough you can only view the film in a theater for the first month and then only by renting it for a month before it is finally released to buy it. All options involve money. There is no way to try before you buy, as there are rarely refunds. These are unacceptable terms.
Is there anything wrong downloading films or music? No, because copyright has absolutely nothing to do with distribution. Copyright creates a temporary monopoly for the creator to be the sole seller. That makes sense because they deserve the money for their creation, not somebody else. But also the media must be released eventually for all the public to include in their own work if culture is to progress. You can see that stopping the distribution from one person to another, or demanding payment for all views, has no moral or ethical basis. In fact while the record industry claims 10% loss of profit from "illegal" downloads, the increased exposure to the good most likely increases overall profit much more than that 1 in 10 who decides not to spend money on it. Any person I've known and any interview I've seen of people who download music and films before paying have shelves of DVDs and CDs at the same time. It is not the case of criminals that just want to have everything for free even if they were rich, it's just because we don't know whether it's worth payment yet. I know preview abilities will be available in the future from distribution websites, but still prices will be too high for people to use that option.
Of course this was not meant to be a comprehensive argument, just additional point to add to the debate arsenal. There are plenty of other points, such as how many times a website's logos and music and so on are copied and stored on servers on the way to the person purchasing it. If anything were wrong with free copies than the whole internet would have to be destroyed. Even more importantly, in order to verify whether someone downloaded something without payment you need their confession in mail, email, on a cell phone, or in an IM. Therefore supporting the idea that you shouldn't copy will end you privacy forever and allow even more ridiculous laws to ensnare you in fees and prison time now that they have access to all your communications. Anything they don't want you doing like owning a certain plant or listening to a certain band or talking a certain way to others now has plenty of your own testimony against you. This will be the end result of everyone saying downloading 'illegal' movies is wrong without understanding anything about it.
Just like the music [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] industry thought tape cassette would be the death of them, and the movie industry of cable and VCRs, profits just continue [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] to increase and more people are satisfied. No violation is made toward anybody by deciding not to purchase the media, it's a risk the artist takes and it's good customer satisfaction. You are not [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] infringing any copyright by downloading movies or music with peer to peer software or otherwise online. It's [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] just guilt they use to maximize [link widoczny dla zalogowanych] profits and maximize customer dissatisfaction.
:
I am providing knowledge for self-sufficiency because in recent decades the liberty of people in "free" nations is being stolen away. There is never any place for a law to be physically enforced which removes the liberties of another, where it cannot be morally justified. See more at
相关的主题文章:

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[url=http://www.19er.tk/home.php?mod=space&uid=16195][/url]