I wouldn't be surprised if the site hosting the comment has their legal department contacted with a "delete this comment and ban the user who posted it or we will sue your ass off in court" type threat.
When someone has a big lawsuit pointed at you, taking advantage of the "we reserve the right to delete anything or ban anybody" clause in their TOS gets awfully tempting.
Would you rather have that or would you rather have dirty tricks giving better machines to different districts?
I think in this case the benefits outweigh the costs.
And if you have someone in the household coercing you, your vote is pretty much already screwed anyway in the status quo, since you can be kept from voting at all.
* It's convenient because people fill their ballots out in the comfort of their own home * It's more efficient because you don't need to open up poll booths * It's harder to stuff ballots because each person only gets one ballot in their mailbox * It's secure and confidential due to existing laws that already make theft, tampering, or interception of mail a federal offense
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ads/
Wasn't there something about an opt out/opt in setting on your google account for off-site tracking?
I think here the FTC just wanted an excuse to fine GOOG.
I think people are just surprised google was able to track them on an iphone, whether or not they consented to it or not.
Thing is I think they only did it for people who already had a google account, and there's a very plain opt out mechanism.
For there to be negligence, there must first be a duty of care to even be breached in the first place.
Even allowing them to remain online is aiding and abetting everything they do.
Impeachment.
We just need competition.
Just bring competition into the insurance industry and let the invisible hand sort it out.
That will weed out the high prices in a heartbeat...or
Somehow I think they put up a flimsy case on purpose.
How the hell do you EXPECT america to know what's in the bill if it's written by corporate lawyers and shoved into DC by lobbyists?
On the contrary, it is showing profound awareness of how the constitution is barely worth the paper it was written on these days.
Legally, you are right.
But practically it doesn't really matter.
Not really.
All scientology has to do is say "delete it or we'll sue"
And most blog sites have legal boilerplate that says "we can delete what we want"
So basically it's selective prosecution.
I wouldn't be surprised if the site hosting the comment has their legal department contacted with a "delete this comment and ban the user who posted it or we will sue your ass off in court" type threat.
When someone has a big lawsuit pointed at you, taking advantage of the "we reserve the right to delete anything or ban anybody" clause in their TOS gets awfully tempting.
Would you rather have that or would you rather have dirty tricks giving better machines to different districts?
I think in this case the benefits outweigh the costs.
And if you have someone in the household coercing you, your vote is pretty much already screwed anyway in the status quo, since you can be kept from voting at all.
What burns me is that they can sue him with impunity and probably take advantage of their superior legal budget to out-gun him in court.
We need loser pays badly so that charities can even the odds without putting a permanent dent in their own budgets.
In the eyes of the gaming community Geohot was nothing but a hacking scumbag who was on the side of pirates.
Most people were GLAD he got his ass sued into the ground.
Then again you tend to like companies that give you koolaid to drink.
Or maybe the university knows it can get the kid to bend over by threatening him with legal action.
I think they just wanted to be ruthless and make an example out of him to deter any other naysayers who would want to follow in his footsteps.
Did your professor tell you in advance that attendance was a major part of your grade?
If so, you got what you deserved.
If not, you got cheated.
Nukes are easy for YOU to get rid of.
Making sure everyone ELSE gets rid of THEIRS is the hard part.
Just do completely mail based ballots.
* It's convenient because people fill their ballots out in the comfort of their own home
* It's more efficient because you don't need to open up poll booths
* It's harder to stuff ballots because each person only gets one ballot in their mailbox
* It's secure and confidential due to existing laws that already make theft, tampering, or interception of mail a federal offense
Nukes prevent wars the same way that taking people hostage prevents a shootout with police.
All it does is make people back down, and makes sure the guys that have nukes get their way without resistance.
Nukes prevents wars in the same way that taking a hostage will prevent a shoot-out with the police.
That's exactly my point.
Without negative votes you're stuck between kodos and kang.
China is unaccountable because it has sovereign immunity.