Effectively if we follow your reasoning this is becomes reduced to a state sponsored attack on the US by the UK.
Absolutely not! What he did is a crime in the UK and absent an extradition he will be tried and punished in the UK for the crime he committed in the UK.
It is a suggestion that as nightmarish as it would be in general to be packed up and shipped to an unfamiliar country to face charges in an unfamiliar legal system where you could be imprisoned far away from family for the rest of your life, it's even worse if you are autistic.
"Identity theft" is a complete sham. When some third party convinces someone to loan them money in your name, they have committed fraud and the whoever handed them bags of cash without making sure they knew who they were dealing with is an idiot who cannot be trusted.
Any attempt to collect the money from you is a second fraud since there exists no evidence you took the loan (because you didn't). If any credit agency accepts a negative statement about your credit worthiness from such an untrustworthy idiot and then reports it to others, they are committing libel. That is, they are reporting these things with a reckless disregard for the truth. That would include Equifax. They certainly should know by now that identity fraud happens all the time, especially since they just facilitated it in a big way.
So, the town's most pernicious gossip has just helped the town's most pernicious frauds to make up new and better lies and as compensation offers to monitor their own pernicious gossip about you for up to a year before they start charging you money to fail to protect you from themselves and their two equally bad buddies.
But only if you agree to not sue them after they stalked you for your entire adult life and then told everything they know to the most crooked people in town.
Nonsense. They are perfectly free to recall bad batches that were clearly NOT made to the specs and standards that have been approved and replace those units with some that have.
There are plenty of intellectually curious people and even more things to be curious about. Perhaps you just need to give one (or more) of them a particular reason to fulfill their curiosity about things useful to you rather than things useful to other employers.
Even if they make no statement on it, a court might easily find that knowingly selling a no-name knock off as the genuine article introduces liability.
Amazon mixing stock from multiple vendors may have introduced a liability. Consider, customer a well known brand made by a well certified legitimate vendor from Amazon. Actually gets a counterfeit pair from a different vendor because Amazon co-mingled the stock. Relying on legit vendor's assurances they use the glasses....
Moral of the story: If you offer brand A from vendor A and someone orders it, you damned well better not ship knock-off A from vendor B.
You're confusing literalist fundies for religion. It should be no surprise that religious texts don't change much, they're concerned primarily with the eternal. Being an asshole to everyone was bad 2000 years ago and it's still bad today. The same moral pitfalls 2000 years ago are still in play now.
There are those people who cling to every word of every parable as if they were ever meant to be taken as literally the whole truth about reality, but that was never the intent. They are little different than the fringe new-agers who latch on to a few cool sounding scientific terms like "quantum" and insist that their ideas are therefor scientific.
Things plugged in to the TV are often quite a bit cheaper than the TV, so when the manufacturer inevitably loses interest in providing decent support, it's cheaper to unplug and replace with something new.
Which would you rather the manufacturer screw up and then declare WONTFIX, your $1000 TV or the $70 dongle plugged in to it?
Keep in mind, bluetooth is a short range signal as well, but with a specialized antenna, 100 meters or more is possible. Also keep in mind that if the device is programmable at all, an exploit could allow re-programming even if remote connections are supposed to be read-only.
Exactly. There was no special agreement granting that the fuel tank would be extra. And there was no agreement that the new owner would pay for the removal of anything. So charging extra for the fuel tank is a non starter and removal of anything will be with the new owners kind permission only.
Yes. They would have used cellular communication for that. The disablers are commonly referred to as GPS devices since they provide GPS tracking info (also via cellular) to the dealer. It's just a short name for the thing, not a mis-understanding of the technology involved.
You missed several points. The biggest one is ownership. Until you pay the car off, the dealership is the actual owner, so it is perfectly legal to disable THEIR car whenever they like. In this case, all agreed that the car was paid off. That means the dealership was illegally disabling someone else's car.
Next up, the first mention of the devices existence was when the dealer demanded a $200 fee to remove it. Nobody had agreed to anything about it at that point.
It seems to me that as long as there remains a one to one ratio of copies bought to households watching, streaming is simply a format shift, which is permitted.
I routinely access data from remote drives, what's so special about a video DVD?
There are confounding factors though. If police are more willing to use tasers than firearms, the actual death count could exceed firearm deaths even if the per incident odds are smaller.
Slashdot Mirror
Effectively if we follow your reasoning this is becomes reduced to a state sponsored attack on the US by the UK.
Absolutely not! What he did is a crime in the UK and absent an extradition he will be tried and punished in the UK for the crime he committed in the UK.
It is a suggestion that as nightmarish as it would be in general to be packed up and shipped to an unfamiliar country to face charges in an unfamiliar legal system where you could be imprisoned far away from family for the rest of your life, it's even worse if you are autistic.
"Identity theft" is a complete sham. When some third party convinces someone to loan them money in your name, they have committed fraud and the whoever handed them bags of cash without making sure they knew who they were dealing with is an idiot who cannot be trusted.
Any attempt to collect the money from you is a second fraud since there exists no evidence you took the loan (because you didn't). If any credit agency accepts a negative statement about your credit worthiness from such an untrustworthy idiot and then reports it to others, they are committing libel. That is, they are reporting these things with a reckless disregard for the truth. That would include Equifax. They certainly should know by now that identity fraud happens all the time, especially since they just facilitated it in a big way.
So, the town's most pernicious gossip has just helped the town's most pernicious frauds to make up new and better lies and as compensation offers to monitor their own pernicious gossip about you for up to a year before they start charging you money to fail to protect you from themselves and their two equally bad buddies.
But only if you agree to not sue them after they stalked you for your entire adult life and then told everything they know to the most crooked people in town.
Nonsense. They are perfectly free to recall bad batches that were clearly NOT made to the specs and standards that have been approved and replace those units with some that have.
The letter states that they failed to do that.
There's idly looking and then there's longing...
RAID is not in itself a backup, but a second raid off site certainly can be.
The story (which still isn't terribly surprising) is that there are no effective checks and balances against the bad behavior.
HERETIC!!!!
The genders are all *EXACTLY* the same in every respect! That is the holy policy! Please report for re-education.
So what you're looking for is a guarantee?
There are plenty of intellectually curious people and even more things to be curious about. Perhaps you just need to give one (or more) of them a particular reason to fulfill their curiosity about things useful to you rather than things useful to other employers.
Even if they make no statement on it, a court might easily find that knowingly selling a no-name knock off as the genuine article introduces liability.
About a zillion references.
Amazon mixing stock from multiple vendors may have introduced a liability. Consider, customer a well known brand made by a well certified legitimate vendor from Amazon. Actually gets a counterfeit pair from a different vendor because Amazon co-mingled the stock. Relying on legit vendor's assurances they use the glasses....
Moral of the story: If you offer brand A from vendor A and someone orders it, you damned well better not ship knock-off A from vendor B.
And that's why I made a couple of pinhole projector boxes the weekend before (and why our cereal was in plastic bags in the pantry).
You're confusing literalist fundies for religion. It should be no surprise that religious texts don't change much, they're concerned primarily with the eternal. Being an asshole to everyone was bad 2000 years ago and it's still bad today. The same moral pitfalls 2000 years ago are still in play now.
There are those people who cling to every word of every parable as if they were ever meant to be taken as literally the whole truth about reality, but that was never the intent. They are little different than the fringe new-agers who latch on to a few cool sounding scientific terms like "quantum" and insist that their ideas are therefor scientific.
Miss a few payments and see who the sheriff escorts out of THEIR house. Hint, you'll need a place to stay.
Things plugged in to the TV are often quite a bit cheaper than the TV, so when the manufacturer inevitably loses interest in providing decent support, it's cheaper to unplug and replace with something new.
Which would you rather the manufacturer screw up and then declare WONTFIX, your $1000 TV or the $70 dongle plugged in to it?
Keep in mind, bluetooth is a short range signal as well, but with a specialized antenna, 100 meters or more is possible. Also keep in mind that if the device is programmable at all, an exploit could allow re-programming even if remote connections are supposed to be read-only.
And in many cases, as long as the patient is lying down comfortably, they will be fine with their own heart rhythm for a few minutes.
Exactly. There was no special agreement granting that the fuel tank would be extra. And there was no agreement that the new owner would pay for the removal of anything. So charging extra for the fuel tank is a non starter and removal of anything will be with the new owners kind permission only.
I agree with you that there need to be further legal restrictions so people don't get stranded and particularly don't get endangered.
I was speaking to existing law which was also violated in this case since it was no longer the dealer's car.
Read my comment again, with comprehension this time. What part of "Nobody had agreed to anything about it at that point." did you not understand?
Yes. They would have used cellular communication for that. The disablers are commonly referred to as GPS devices since they provide GPS tracking info (also via cellular) to the dealer. It's just a short name for the thing, not a mis-understanding of the technology involved.
You missed several points. The biggest one is ownership. Until you pay the car off, the dealership is the actual owner, so it is perfectly legal to disable THEIR car whenever they like. In this case, all agreed that the car was paid off. That means the dealership was illegally disabling someone else's car.
Next up, the first mention of the devices existence was when the dealer demanded a $200 fee to remove it. Nobody had agreed to anything about it at that point.
It seems to me that as long as there remains a one to one ratio of copies bought to households watching, streaming is simply a format shift, which is permitted.
I routinely access data from remote drives, what's so special about a video DVD?
There are confounding factors though. If police are more willing to use tasers than firearms, the actual death count could exceed firearm deaths even if the per incident odds are smaller.