Well, star trek differs from firefly because some people have actually watched star trek on tv.
Star trek isnt being picked on, at least not specifically. The concept of science fiction not being based on science fact for sci-fi entertainment is the issue./.ers (and the article) want science fiction to come up with a sciency based solution and then create the plot. From a writer's standpoint, that is ridiculous. You create a problem, and then a resolution. If it isn't based on actual science, so what? Its entertainment.
From a personal perspective, if you are writing a book, you might want to do your research. After all, someone might read it someday. If you are scripting a tv show, it might be beneficial to purposefully write in some impossibilities, so that the people who care watch to complain about it, and those who don't watch it for the shiny plot holes. You wouldn't believe how many starving african children can be fed from plot holes. No wait, thats not what tv writers or producers do with advertising dollars...
Colleges - most of them. The cost would be passed along to students in the form of tuition. Of course, most college math classes that I took didn't allow calculators, and neither does most math beyond pre-algebra; it just isn't necessary.
If HP allows people to homebrew on calculators, they are providing a hardware medium in which non-TI software can be used.
This means that schools will not allow those calculators to be used (and definately won't require them). Since a material portion of revenue comes from sales to students, the students who don't write their own calc apps will be the ones who don't buy the calculators.
Schools tend to work on the sense of "we approve this brand/publisher/company", not "we approve this product." Therefore if one calculator can't be used due to the possibility of cheating, and its a graphing calculator, no graphing calculators can be used.
This is an issue of HP having the power to complain, but not the right. Normally, you will see a business attempting this because the long term effect on sales and public opinion is less than the effect of not doing so. In the short term, HP will have to come out with a new calculator, require schools to make students sign over their rights to do anything with the calculator unless its an HP approved usage, students that can't afford the caluclator will get a subsidized cost based on income, and voila, now HP is too big to fail and required in schools. I'm exaggerating, of course, but not as much as I reasonably should be.
Of course HP wants to sell more calculators, HP correctly realizes that they can't sell more calculators by giving up their main market format for a niche.
Unless you helped your friend move 651 times during the year, in which case you would have to report the last 20 bucks (over the annual 13k exclusion) as income, or your friend would have to pay gift tax on it.
On the other hand, if you happen to earn money by helping people move, you are employed, as a sole proprietor. You have liability for people's stuff as you move it. You definetely charge more than 20 bucks, and if you aren't mentally retarded, you incorporate to avoid personal liability.
If the gas card is used for personal vehicles, then it is income.
If the gas card is used to offset personal expenses for firefighting gas needs (say for, a firetruck), then use a business credit card to pay for the gas.
The question is whether it constitutes a business. At best, you are running a not-for-profit organization where you subsidize the cost of video games for the general public, albeit on an extremely small scale. For practical purposes, you are not a sole proprietor, because it would be illegal for you to sell merchandise below cost. Since all you do is sell things, and arent involved in the manufacturing, RD, distribution, etc., this would make you a retailer. The biggest issue, is of course, that a business cannot exist for the purpose of lowering personal expenses. After all, if your business gets sued, your personal assets aren't at stake (with the exception of a sole proprietorship).
When you aren't using inventory for personal use, then you might want to declare your business.
evidence was a screen capture? you know how easy it is to create fake screens, most people with any photoshop like app and html can do one in an hour
Maybe so, but if the screen capture was fake, the accused could demand the logs from facebook directly, to show that the poking was faked. You could show that you weren't logged into facebook at the time of poke, or that your user did not have a record of poking, or a number of other methods to show that you didn't poke them.
It might be expensive, and it might take a court order to get the data, but if I didn't actually do it, I'd take it on. Especially with possible jail time on the line. If I could prove it to not have been me who poked, I would counter-sue for my time and effort, my actual expense, my lawyer's time, and to remove the fraudulent restraining order (obviously, if someone wants to see me so badly as to fake a violation of a restraining order...).
The other side of the risk here is that if it becomes public knowledge that someone faked breach of a restraining order by using facebook or a computer to screen capture, the local newspaper may not be so kind as the judge who simply laughs you out of court with a large fine and dissolution of the restraining order.
My guess (and let's face, every rational person on earth) is that someone (allegedly) violated a restraining order by poking someone else on facebook.
Actually, it could be beneficial for marketshare to allow google to link to murdock content without it being financially beneficial. Murdoch may choose not to use robots to block google from linking because he wants more reader/viewers for fox/wsj/etc.
The other side is that the amount of money google may lose from not linking may be material to their financial statements. If Murdoch is in position to gain while google is in position to lose from not paying him off to link to him, it would stupid of google (read - open google to massive shareholder lawsuits) to block them or not pay. You don't become a media mogul by not being able to complete a cost-benefit analysis, and it is quite likely that Murdoch has determined that this will end in his favor.
Hey annoying copycat point repeating thoughtless slashdotters, just because you have an option doesn't mean you should take it. Next time you post, think beyond robots.txt and think like a businessman for business decisions (if you are a woman, and didnt think of this, based on the fact that no one else did, you should still think like like a businessman. No businessperson did.)
I don't really see the connection here...you must still be in high school, a place where saying "i have alcohol" and not lying about it means you can get laid.
I don't really have a need to be the center of attention by being the guy who spent 400 bucks just to be the guy who bought some kegs. I'm quite happy being that reliable guy who can actually drive home afterwards without risking a felony.
I know its confusing hearing that someone doesnt need a blinding beacon going "hey, look at me motherfuckers, I'm the only thing you ever need to care about," but maybe, the community college you eventually fail out of will have someone who cares, even for a second, that you exist.
Ignoring the fact that the majority of thing s McGuyver did couldn't have actually been done, he did everything he did with the resources available. There are better systems than an Xbox for computer related [whatever]. I pity you for confusing television with reality, and the mods who modded you up for their very existence. Shame on all of you.
First of all, that's not a citation; you don't attribute the original source. You just put quotations around words and emboldened what you wanted to be a counter-argument.
Secondly, googling your "citation" shows it to be from Wikipedia, so no basis for believing that either.
Third, I get the idea that private property can't be vandalized because it actually can't. Spray painting a tree in your yard is very different from spray painting a McDonalds. Same action = different level of crime (civil vs criminal). When its private property, we call it trespassing and destruction of property, not vandalism. Before you fly off the handle here, corporations are persons for financial purposes only; it should be obvious that McDonald's cannot be forced to perform community service or take an anger management class or serve time in prison (nor would be appropriate, even if it could).
By kids bricking your windows, I assume you mean throwing bricks at them; which is absurd, because no one would ever let kids throw bricks at their windows.
If you are talking about Windows software, you would have to let them onto your computer (not necessarily directly, but you would still have to give them direct permission to brick your windows) in order for it to be equivalent, and those kids would have to not know that the actions they were taking would do something to your hardware. On the other hand, this still wouldn't be vandalism.
Your writing skills are atrocius. I had to reread your post a couple of times to realize that you didn't mean that the bank vandalized your computer with a trojan on a music cd.
Nevermind that your daughter installed a trojan because you did not have adequate security on your computer, but even if a representative of SONY had walked into your house, personally installed a trojan on your computer, and had you sign for it, it still would not be vandalism.
Testing only shows a theoretical model of real world use. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
SONY BMG (not just SONY) rootkit was not done to damage computers. It was a form of copy protection (the validity of copy protection is an unrelated debate) that did not work as intended. SONY BMG recalled all affected cd's when it was clear that malware could take advantage of an exploit that resulted from the copy protection employed. The copy protection itself did not damage your computer. On the other hand, prior to this, the same issues had existed on cds released in europe years beforehand, only in europe there were no warning labels.
Thank you for capitalizing 'did' in your last sentence; without that I would not have been able to determine your opinion on whether SONY learns from past behavior. After all, since the SONY BMG rootkit fiasco seemed to have helped sales in both the short and long term, they must have been repeating it here. Especially since electronics companies tend to stick around when they screw over customers repeatedly and knowingly.
Vandalism is destruction or defacement of common property, not personal property. While it could apply to kids tping your trees, this isn't really the situation this software update created.
If Sony's update caused your PS3 to only display vulgar images, or teletubbies, or any other sort of eyesore, you might have a point.
This update caused hardware damage, but the willful damage does not apply, as the user has to determine whether or not to update the software (the purpose of the update was not to damage hardware).
Its the vandalism equivalent of someone walking through your neighborhood, asking you if you would like an egg to throw at your house, and then you throw it. The next day, they have a door cleaning service that doesn't get rid of the smell.
You had to sleep both ways in the snow? At your daughter's age?
Thank [deity] that's illegal now (making kids sleep both ways, not sleeping in the snow, oddly enough...if that's your thing go for it, but I probably wouldn't post about it on the internet) !
Don't worry though, by the time she is a teenager she is likely to have gotten over that whole eating thing, what with the peer pressure to be skinny and such.
As for your manager, it sounds like the problem was you. Instead of making the customer happy, you decided to produce shit. I assure you, if you had stayed within the laws of physics, it would have turned out better. Perhaps you could have produced something that worked that was outside of the constraints, so that the PHB could compare the two, realize that a group of competent techs could work together as a team, combine their talent, and produce something viable. More than anything, it sounds like you flushed your combined talent straight down the toilet. The constraints that you were held to may have been out of the control of your manager. If it wasn't actually possible to produce what was asked of you, you should have simply pointed out that it could not be done. After all, you were a competent group of techs that worked great together as a team. After you all got fired, the replacement team couldn't do it either, right? If they could, you have misjudged your own ability. If not, your group that works well together could start your own company, take on your own jobs, and turn down customers that ask for impossible things.
After all, you have been sleeping in the snow both ways ever since you were a child, right? You even liked it. Using your talent properly doesn't seem like a monumental task.
Google translates 3 google seconds as 9.50662939*10^92 years.
I assume this update will be irrelevant by then...
On the other hand, the update isn't for the admin who can update quickly, but rather for the user who lets his software get old, thinking apple will send him updates when they make a difference to the functionality of his software. He is not reading what the update does, even though he has the option, because it's from apple.
This isn't a windows vs apple issue. This is a (update automatically because you are lazy) issue, which means that millions of updaters are certainly possible, especially if corporations use iphones.
She wasn't being ironic with the song, she was just expressing what she does.
Don't worry lilly, there isn't a chance in hell that I would ever buy or download your songs, your music is awful. It is studio produced, lacks any sort of musicality, doesn't stick in my head because its soft, weak, and meaningless drivel.
If a copy of your cds came free with my rent, I would move, just so I wouldn't be associated with it. It is a fraud to call what lilly allen creates music.
Pork sausages. Clearly came from a pig originally. Then some magical happened at a factory, and the grocery store workers sold it to the end user. God had nothing to do with it.
He already lost a trial, was ordered to turn over the title to his house as part of a 3.2 M judgement, and then was found to be in contempt for not doing so. Indefinite jail time sounds reasonable to me in this circumstance.
If you aren't, this was a scammer who had already been prosecuted, found guilty, and had not turned over the title to his home as ordered in a 3.2 M judgement. He was rightly prosecuted for contempt of court.
As for his original crime, he was prosecuted for hiding assets of clients, which is being an accessory to fraud. Last time I checked, knowingly helping someone to commit a crime is also a crime. If that is no longer true in the US, go ahead and show me the legal precedent so I know where to invest my money (obviously, in other countries, not in newly determined "legal" businesses).
The summary is heavily confused (not odd for/., I will admit).
If someone breaks a door to a store in the act of robbing it, and the store never had a lock, both the store and the robber are idiots. On the other hand, if legislation requries stores to have locks on their doors, then the replacement door requires a lock, and the thief who broke the lockless door should be held to replace it with a law abiding door. Meanwhile, if the thief wants to sue the store for not having a lock on their door, he/she will probably lose since he/she broke the unlocked door.
The relevant point is that the thief caused damage to the store causing it to be unsafe for patrons/customers/other thieves, and that damage should be repaired. When a hacker uncovers an issue that was previously unknown, and it becomes public knowledge, that hacker is liable for the damage just like a thief breaking a door would uncover the knowledge that there was no lock (only now it is painfully obvious that the doorless store is not locked).
I assume you pay your bills at some point, perhaps using a bank account of some sort?
In other words, you aren't sending T-mobile cash each month to pay your bills?
Then your bank has records of what you have paid. T-mobile has records of their aggregate financials, which are audited, and are publicly available, called a 10k (annual) or 10q (interim financials).
T-mobile at some point has provided your bill, so if you want your February 2004 bill for your records, it is your responsibility to keep your records. If T-mobile keeps your records anyway, there is a customer agreement that you have agreed with in order to do business with T-mobile, that either specifically points out the requirements for back billing receipts or states that T-mobile can change this whenever they want.
The seven years of records requirement is for publicly traded companies, not individuals. Your taxable statute of limitations is much shorter, unless you have committed fraud, in which case seven years also doesn't apply (no statute of limitations). If you have committed fraud, I wouldn't worry so much about whether t-mobile has proof of it, but rather about why it is of such a scale that the IRS is investingating your t-mobile bills to find it.
Of course the IRS accepts printed copies of bills as valid receipts. What the hell do you think a receipt is? Its a printed copy of a bill.
You think that T-mobile, who keeps records, to the minute, of the phone number called from, the phone number called to, the registered location of both phones during the call, the location where your call originated if a cell phone, the number of times you have made a phone call between specific phone numbers in a billing period, the text of any text you send or receive, the time, date, and amount of all billings and payments; all in the hope that you will just buy an unlimited plan that you don't need, is going to be able to change their electronic records? Are you daft?
Well, thats five questions that everyone else on/. already knew the answer to. For once, the quote at the bottom of the page (He missed an invaluable opportunity to hold his tongue - Andrew Lang) is appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont know...can a replicator create a replicator?
If not, you could easily sell those...
Well, star trek differs from firefly because some people have actually watched star trek on tv.
Star trek isnt being picked on, at least not specifically. The concept of science fiction not being based on science fact for sci-fi entertainment is the issue. /.ers (and the article) want science fiction to come up with a sciency based solution and then create the plot. From a writer's standpoint, that is ridiculous. You create a problem, and then a resolution. If it isn't based on actual science, so what? Its entertainment.
From a personal perspective, if you are writing a book, you might want to do your research. After all, someone might read it someday. If you are scripting a tv show, it might be beneficial to purposefully write in some impossibilities, so that the people who care watch to complain about it, and those who don't watch it for the shiny plot holes. You wouldn't believe how many starving african children can be fed from plot holes. No wait, thats not what tv writers or producers do with advertising dollars...
High schools, no (publicly funded).
Colleges - most of them. The cost would be passed along to students in the form of tuition. Of course, most college math classes that I took didn't allow calculators, and neither does most math beyond pre-algebra; it just isn't necessary.
If HP allows people to homebrew on calculators, they are providing a hardware medium in which non-TI software can be used.
This means that schools will not allow those calculators to be used (and definately won't require them). Since a material portion of revenue comes from sales to students, the students who don't write their own calc apps will be the ones who don't buy the calculators.
Schools tend to work on the sense of "we approve this brand/publisher/company", not "we approve this product." Therefore if one calculator can't be used due to the possibility of cheating, and its a graphing calculator, no graphing calculators can be used.
This is an issue of HP having the power to complain, but not the right. Normally, you will see a business attempting this because the long term effect on sales and public opinion is less than the effect of not doing so. In the short term, HP will have to come out with a new calculator, require schools to make students sign over their rights to do anything with the calculator unless its an HP approved usage, students that can't afford the caluclator will get a subsidized cost based on income, and voila, now HP is too big to fail and required in schools. I'm exaggerating, of course, but not as much as I reasonably should be.
Of course HP wants to sell more calculators, HP correctly realizes that they can't sell more calculators by giving up their main market format for a niche.
No, your friend gave you a gift.
Unless you helped your friend move 651 times during the year, in which case you would have to report the last 20 bucks (over the annual 13k exclusion) as income, or your friend would have to pay gift tax on it.
On the other hand, if you happen to earn money by helping people move, you are employed, as a sole proprietor. You have liability for people's stuff as you move it. You definetely charge more than 20 bucks, and if you aren't mentally retarded, you incorporate to avoid personal liability.
There is a really simple solution for this -
If the gas card is used for personal vehicles, then it is income.
If the gas card is used to offset personal expenses for firefighting gas needs (say for, a firetruck), then use a business credit card to pay for the gas.
It constitutes a loss.
COGS would be higher than revenue.
The question is whether it constitutes a business. At best, you are running a not-for-profit organization where you subsidize the cost of video games for the general public, albeit on an extremely small scale. For practical purposes, you are not a sole proprietor, because it would be illegal for you to sell merchandise below cost. Since all you do is sell things, and arent involved in the manufacturing, RD, distribution, etc., this would make you a retailer. The biggest issue, is of course, that a business cannot exist for the purpose of lowering personal expenses. After all, if your business gets sued, your personal assets aren't at stake (with the exception of a sole proprietorship).
When you aren't using inventory for personal use, then you might want to declare your business.
evidence was a screen capture? you know how easy it is to create fake screens, most people with any photoshop like app and html can do one in an hour
Maybe so, but if the screen capture was fake, the accused could demand the logs from facebook directly, to show that the poking was faked. You could show that you weren't logged into facebook at the time of poke, or that your user did not have a record of poking, or a number of other methods to show that you didn't poke them.
It might be expensive, and it might take a court order to get the data, but if I didn't actually do it, I'd take it on. Especially with possible jail time on the line. If I could prove it to not have been me who poked, I would counter-sue for my time and effort, my actual expense, my lawyer's time, and to remove the fraudulent restraining order (obviously, if someone wants to see me so badly as to fake a violation of a restraining order...).
The other side of the risk here is that if it becomes public knowledge that someone faked breach of a restraining order by using facebook or a computer to screen capture, the local newspaper may not be so kind as the judge who simply laughs you out of court with a large fine and dissolution of the restraining order.
My guess (and let's face, every rational person on earth) is that someone (allegedly) violated a restraining order by poking someone else on facebook.
Welcome to planet Earth, where no stereotype is not mocked.
FTFY
Actually, it could be beneficial for marketshare to allow google to link to murdock content without it being financially beneficial. Murdoch may choose not to use robots to block google from linking because he wants more reader/viewers for fox/wsj/etc.
The other side is that the amount of money google may lose from not linking may be material to their financial statements. If Murdoch is in position to gain while google is in position to lose from not paying him off to link to him, it would stupid of google (read - open google to massive shareholder lawsuits) to block them or not pay. You don't become a media mogul by not being able to complete a cost-benefit analysis, and it is quite likely that Murdoch has determined that this will end in his favor.
Hey annoying copycat point repeating thoughtless slashdotters, just because you have an option doesn't mean you should take it. Next time you post, think beyond robots.txt and think like a businessman for business decisions (if you are a woman, and didnt think of this, based on the fact that no one else did, you should still think like like a businessman. No businessperson did.)
I don't really see the connection here...you must still be in high school, a place where saying "i have alcohol" and not lying about it means you can get laid.
I don't really have a need to be the center of attention by being the guy who spent 400 bucks just to be the guy who bought some kegs. I'm quite happy being that reliable guy who can actually drive home afterwards without risking a felony.
I know its confusing hearing that someone doesnt need a blinding beacon going "hey, look at me motherfuckers, I'm the only thing you ever need to care about," but maybe, the community college you eventually fail out of will have someone who cares, even for a second, that you exist.
When you have a logical point, let me know.
Ignoring the fact that the majority of thing s McGuyver did couldn't have actually been done, he did everything he did with the resources available. There are better systems than an Xbox for computer related [whatever]. I pity you for confusing television with reality, and the mods who modded you up for their very existence. Shame on all of you.
First of all, that's not a citation; you don't attribute the original source. You just put quotations around words and emboldened what you wanted to be a counter-argument.
Secondly, googling your "citation" shows it to be from Wikipedia, so no basis for believing that either.
Third, I get the idea that private property can't be vandalized because it actually can't. Spray painting a tree in your yard is very different from spray painting a McDonalds. Same action = different level of crime (civil vs criminal). When its private property, we call it trespassing and destruction of property, not vandalism. Before you fly off the handle here, corporations are persons for financial purposes only; it should be obvious that McDonald's cannot be forced to perform community service or take an anger management class or serve time in prison (nor would be appropriate, even if it could).
By kids bricking your windows, I assume you mean throwing bricks at them; which is absurd, because no one would ever let kids throw bricks at their windows.
If you are talking about Windows software, you would have to let them onto your computer (not necessarily directly, but you would still have to give them direct permission to brick your windows) in order for it to be equivalent, and those kids would have to not know that the actions they were taking would do something to your hardware. On the other hand, this still wouldn't be vandalism.
Your writing skills are atrocius. I had to reread your post a couple of times to realize that you didn't mean that the bank vandalized your computer with a trojan on a music cd.
Nevermind that your daughter installed a trojan because you did not have adequate security on your computer, but even if a representative of SONY had walked into your house, personally installed a trojan on your computer, and had you sign for it, it still would not be vandalism.
Testing only shows a theoretical model of real world use. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
SONY BMG (not just SONY) rootkit was not done to damage computers. It was a form of copy protection (the validity of copy protection is an unrelated debate) that did not work as intended. SONY BMG recalled all affected cd's when it was clear that malware could take advantage of an exploit that resulted from the copy protection employed. The copy protection itself did not damage your computer. On the other hand, prior to this, the same issues had existed on cds released in europe years beforehand, only in europe there were no warning labels.
Thank you for capitalizing 'did' in your last sentence; without that I would not have been able to determine your opinion on whether SONY learns from past behavior. After all, since the SONY BMG rootkit fiasco seemed to have helped sales in both the short and long term, they must have been repeating it here. Especially since electronics companies tend to stick around when they screw over customers repeatedly and knowingly.
No wait, none of the previous paragraph is true.
Vandalism is destruction or defacement of common property, not personal property. While it could apply to kids tping your trees, this isn't really the situation this software update created.
If Sony's update caused your PS3 to only display vulgar images, or teletubbies, or any other sort of eyesore, you might have a point.
This update caused hardware damage, but the willful damage does not apply, as the user has to determine whether or not to update the software (the purpose of the update was not to damage hardware).
Its the vandalism equivalent of someone walking through your neighborhood, asking you if you would like an egg to throw at your house, and then you throw it. The next day, they have a door cleaning service that doesn't get rid of the smell.
Never mind, its nothing like vandalism.
Probably because breaking someone's shit is normally a civil, not criminal issue.
Extortion, on the other hand, would be - pay us or we will break your shit; not we broke your shit, now pay us.
You had to sleep both ways in the snow? At your daughter's age?
Thank [deity] that's illegal now (making kids sleep both ways, not sleeping in the snow, oddly enough...if that's your thing go for it, but I probably wouldn't post about it on the internet) !
Don't worry though, by the time she is a teenager she is likely to have gotten over that whole eating thing, what with the peer pressure to be skinny and such.
As for your manager, it sounds like the problem was you. Instead of making the customer happy, you decided to produce shit. I assure you, if you had stayed within the laws of physics, it would have turned out better. Perhaps you could have produced something that worked that was outside of the constraints, so that the PHB could compare the two, realize that a group of competent techs could work together as a team, combine their talent, and produce something viable. More than anything, it sounds like you flushed your combined talent straight down the toilet. The constraints that you were held to may have been out of the control of your manager. If it wasn't actually possible to produce what was asked of you, you should have simply pointed out that it could not be done. After all, you were a competent group of techs that worked great together as a team. After you all got fired, the replacement team couldn't do it either, right? If they could, you have misjudged your own ability. If not, your group that works well together could start your own company, take on your own jobs, and turn down customers that ask for impossible things.
After all, you have been sleeping in the snow both ways ever since you were a child, right? You even liked it. Using your talent properly doesn't seem like a monumental task.
Google translates 3 google seconds as 9.50662939*10^92 years.
I assume this update will be irrelevant by then...
On the other hand, the update isn't for the admin who can update quickly, but rather for the user who lets his software get old, thinking apple will send him updates when they make a difference to the functionality of his software. He is not reading what the update does, even though he has the option, because it's from apple.
This isn't a windows vs apple issue. This is a (update automatically because you are lazy) issue, which means that millions of updaters are certainly possible, especially if corporations use iphones.
I never heard of her either. So I went on youtube, searched for lilly allen, saw a promo for a song called "the fear."
Here are the lyrics:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-fear-lyrics-lily-allen.html
Then I saw that lilly allen got topless for some award show http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/12/lily-allen-topless-for-gq_n_284560.html
She wasn't being ironic with the song, she was just expressing what she does.
Don't worry lilly, there isn't a chance in hell that I would ever buy or download your songs, your music is awful. It is studio produced, lacks any sort of musicality, doesn't stick in my head because its soft, weak, and meaningless drivel.
If a copy of your cds came free with my rent, I would move, just so I wouldn't be associated with it. It is a fraud to call what lilly allen creates music.
You idiot.
Pork sausages. Clearly came from a pig originally. Then some magical happened at a factory, and the grocery store workers sold it to the end user. God had nothing to do with it.
He already lost a trial, was ordered to turn over the title to his house as part of a 3.2 M judgement, and then was found to be in contempt for not doing so. Indefinite jail time sounds reasonable to me in this circumstance.
I hope you are kidding.
If you aren't, this was a scammer who had already been prosecuted, found guilty, and had not turned over the title to his home as ordered in a 3.2 M judgement. He was rightly prosecuted for contempt of court.
As for his original crime, he was prosecuted for hiding assets of clients, which is being an accessory to fraud. Last time I checked, knowingly helping someone to commit a crime is also a crime. If that is no longer true in the US, go ahead and show me the legal precedent so I know where to invest my money (obviously, in other countries, not in newly determined "legal" businesses).
Again, if the robber doesnt damage the door, he doesnt have to replace it.
Thats a very different situation from the article, where a broken door is created by the robber.
The summary is heavily confused (not odd for /., I will admit).
If someone breaks a door to a store in the act of robbing it, and the store never had a lock, both the store and the robber are idiots. On the other hand, if legislation requries stores to have locks on their doors, then the replacement door requires a lock, and the thief who broke the lockless door should be held to replace it with a law abiding door. Meanwhile, if the thief wants to sue the store for not having a lock on their door, he/she will probably lose since he/she broke the unlocked door.
The relevant point is that the thief caused damage to the store causing it to be unsafe for patrons/customers/other thieves, and that damage should be repaired. When a hacker uncovers an issue that was previously unknown, and it becomes public knowledge, that hacker is liable for the damage just like a thief breaking a door would uncover the knowledge that there was no lock (only now it is painfully obvious that the doorless store is not locked).
I assure you, modifying the white balance would affect the appearance of a person.
That is the primary purpose for doing so.
I assume you pay your bills at some point, perhaps using a bank account of some sort?
In other words, you aren't sending T-mobile cash each month to pay your bills?
Then your bank has records of what you have paid. T-mobile has records of their aggregate financials, which are audited, and are publicly available, called a 10k (annual) or 10q (interim financials).
T-mobile at some point has provided your bill, so if you want your February 2004 bill for your records, it is your responsibility to keep your records. If T-mobile keeps your records anyway, there is a customer agreement that you have agreed with in order to do business with T-mobile, that either specifically points out the requirements for back billing receipts or states that T-mobile can change this whenever they want.
The seven years of records requirement is for publicly traded companies, not individuals. Your taxable statute of limitations is much shorter, unless you have committed fraud, in which case seven years also doesn't apply (no statute of limitations). If you have committed fraud, I wouldn't worry so much about whether t-mobile has proof of it, but rather about why it is of such a scale that the IRS is investingating your t-mobile bills to find it.
Of course the IRS accepts printed copies of bills as valid receipts. What the hell do you think a receipt is? Its a printed copy of a bill.
You think that T-mobile, who keeps records, to the minute, of the phone number called from, the phone number called to, the registered location of both phones during the call, the location where your call originated if a cell phone, the number of times you have made a phone call between specific phone numbers in a billing period, the text of any text you send or receive, the time, date, and amount of all billings and payments; all in the hope that you will just buy an unlimited plan that you don't need, is going to be able to change their electronic records? Are you daft?
Well, thats five questions that everyone else on /. already knew the answer to. For once, the quote at the bottom of the page (He missed an invaluable opportunity to hold his tongue - Andrew Lang) is appropriate.