EULAs cannot deprive you of any right that is in violation of law. If a law has been interpreted to mean that reselling software is completely legal, a EULA claiming that you can't is unenforceable, and essentially invalid (that specific part of it, at least).
What happens? They deny it in a completely reasonable statement? They didn't kill anyone over it, threaten to sue anyone, or attempt to have the report blocked in any way. What are you trying to suggest?
But the public has been sold on the idea of Facebook as a platform where stories organically rise to be trending due to popularity and momentum.
Really? I don't even look at trending stories: I use social networks to communicate with friends and read about things I've specifically asked to see. I didn't realize anyone joined Facebook with the goal of being told what news stories were popular at the moment.
It's a common misdirection tactic: if you are guilty of something, loudly accuse someone else of the same, or worse. It's mostly used by children and politicians.
A candidate for elections supervisor for a county is not the active elections supervisor for the county.
From the article: "Levin detailed the SQL injection in a YouTube video shot with elections supervisor Dan Sinclair". It does not say "candidate" anywhere in the text.
If that is the case, the article was not clear on that point. I went back and reread it and still am not entirely sure, but I am not intimately familiar with the details so I will accept that I could have been incorrect in my assessment.
Why are we allowing Video Gaming to become a spectator sport?
Why do you think you should have a say in "allowing" something to become a "spectator sport"? It affects you in almost no way whatsoever. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Other people do like watching it, so let them spend their time and money on what they enjoy. I think it's idiotic, but idiots will do what idiots do.
For as many people who will believe he is honest after his opinions shift and was just pretending before, just as many (or more) will believe that he was honest before and is trying to appeal to voters only until he gets elected. I doubt his base will stay home in significant numbers for any reason. Parts of the GOP base, however, is another story.
I was curious about this, but you would be hard-pressed to find a "preacher" in North Korea, apparently. Weddings there are usually based on traditions that aren't like Western marriage rituals. There would be a lot of people around, and it would be difficult for it to be hidden away from someone who might turn you in.
Very well said. I am regularly amazed at how few people understand the (lack of) organization of Anonymous, especially media outlets. The only thing I would sort-of disagree with is that it is for political activism. That is one thing that has arisen from Anonymous and it is probably the most visible aspect, but they do other things too that are not political in nature: they still do some things "for teh lulz" occasionally.
Even if that fell under "free speech", you are completely free to design and even BUILD a car without that stuff. What you can't do is drive it on public roads with other drivers.
The last I heard, the information found that was classified became classified only after the information was sent via email. The government likes to make all kinds of useless garbage "classified" just because they can.
Advertisers would contract directly with the publisher who would lay out ads amongst content as they did in the days of paper. That is the centuries old proven model.
It doesn't really take much away from your point, but I feel it's worth noting that newspapers do contract out advertising with 3rd parties. A company can employ an advert agency to place their advertisement in multiple newspapers (dozens, or even hundreds). That's similar to me employing Google to run my advert on hundreds (or, more likely thousands) of web sites.
Slashdot Mirror
You can thank Alan Greenspan for that.
- why should "I" thank him?
"Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it."
Polls mean pretty much nothing until a month or so before the actual election. They rarely reflect reality and often show contradictory results.
EULAs cannot deprive you of any right that is in violation of law. If a law has been interpreted to mean that reselling software is completely legal, a EULA claiming that you can't is unenforceable, and essentially invalid (that specific part of it, at least).
What happens? They deny it in a completely reasonable statement? They didn't kill anyone over it, threaten to sue anyone, or attempt to have the report blocked in any way. What are you trying to suggest?
Yeah, I can't imagine why someone hasn't thought to create a billion-dollar investment fund in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan!
But the public has been sold on the idea of Facebook as a platform where stories organically rise to be trending due to popularity and momentum.
Really? I don't even look at trending stories: I use social networks to communicate with friends and read about things I've specifically asked to see. I didn't realize anyone joined Facebook with the goal of being told what news stories were popular at the moment.
It's a common misdirection tactic: if you are guilty of something, loudly accuse someone else of the same, or worse. It's mostly used by children and politicians.
Yeah, doesn't he know that marijuana is now made out of 100% PCP and that cars and roads are completely different than they were in the 90s?
How about you get more than one data point instead of finding three articles that all reference the same study.
Despite having three different links, they all refer to just one "HealthDay News" study.
A candidate for elections supervisor for a county is not the active elections supervisor for the county.
From the article: "Levin detailed the SQL injection in a YouTube video shot with elections supervisor Dan Sinclair". It does not say "candidate" anywhere in the text.
If that is the case, the article was not clear on that point. I went back and reread it and still am not entirely sure, but I am not intimately familiar with the details so I will accept that I could have been incorrect in my assessment.
He was "hacking" it on a video demonstrating it directly to THE ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR, who agree he should not have been arrested.
Why are we allowing Video Gaming to become a spectator sport?
Why do you think you should have a say in "allowing" something to become a "spectator sport"? It affects you in almost no way whatsoever. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Other people do like watching it, so let them spend their time and money on what they enjoy. I think it's idiotic, but idiots will do what idiots do.
For as many people who will believe he is honest after his opinions shift and was just pretending before, just as many (or more) will believe that he was honest before and is trying to appeal to voters only until he gets elected. I doubt his base will stay home in significant numbers for any reason. Parts of the GOP base, however, is another story.
No you do not.... all you need is a preacher.
I was curious about this, but you would be hard-pressed to find a "preacher" in North Korea, apparently. Weddings there are usually based on traditions that aren't like Western marriage rituals. There would be a lot of people around, and it would be difficult for it to be hidden away from someone who might turn you in.
I'm not saying impossible, but difficult.
Very well said. I am regularly amazed at how few people understand the (lack of) organization of Anonymous, especially media outlets. The only thing I would sort-of disagree with is that it is for political activism. That is one thing that has arisen from Anonymous and it is probably the most visible aspect, but they do other things too that are not political in nature: they still do some things "for teh lulz" occasionally.
Replace "puppies" with "presidential candidates" and you're pretty much spot-on.
Anyone CAN BE Anonymous, and someone can imitate Anonymous. They are not the same thing.
The radio spectrum, like most roads, is public property.
Yes, but the FCC still regulates its use "for the public good" like the Dept. of Transportation and state DMVs regulate road use.
Even if that fell under "free speech", you are completely free to design and even BUILD a car without that stuff. What you can't do is drive it on public roads with other drivers.
The last I heard, the information found that was classified became classified only after the information was sent via email. The government likes to make all kinds of useless garbage "classified" just because they can.
Advertisers would contract directly with the publisher who would lay out ads amongst content as they did in the days of paper. That is the centuries old proven model.
It doesn't really take much away from your point, but I feel it's worth noting that newspapers do contract out advertising with 3rd parties. A company can employ an advert agency to place their advertisement in multiple newspapers (dozens, or even hundreds). That's similar to me employing Google to run my advert on hundreds (or, more likely thousands) of web sites.
My gut reaction is to agree with you, but hired debt collectors get paid for what they do too. This company is just going about it in a different way.
AdBlock doesn't force anyone to do anything. You are obviously not interested in rational discussion.