The brick & mortar equivalent would be a farmers' market or a flea market. If you have a problem with a product purchased is your dispute with the entity operating the stall you bought it from or with the entity running the entire market? I suspect you will in fact get a "the seller is liable not us" response.
If your Samsung phone explodes do you take it up with the T-mobile store you bought it from? Or do you take it up with the owners of the mall in which the T-mobile is located?
If you bought an exploding hoverboard on craigslist do you sue craiglist when your house burns down?
Amazon also does payment processing, but again, if you bought an exploding hoverboard on craigslist and paid via paypal do you sue paypal when your house burns down?
Amazon also often does shipping, but again if you bought that exploding hoverboard on craiglist and paid via paypal and it shipped via fedex do you sue fedex when your house burns down?
Maybe there's a point at which by handling so much of the process you become resposible. Though this particular judge clearly doesn't think so or thinks the line is even further down.
I said "federal charges", that's a state charge. Which is obvious if you don't remove the context that states that and misquote by removing the word "with" in order to make your out of context snippet read less obviously like it is out of context. The actual text:
> who is facing state court charges including involuntary manslaughter, with false information and hoaxes, cyberstalking, threatening to kill another or damage property by fire, interstate threats, conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud - The Wichita Eagle
I'm trying really hard to Hanlon's razor, the removing of the "with" in the middle is making it hard though.
It would be "interesting" to have the government's lawyers arguing that a reasonable person would expect the police to shoot the victim of a false emergency call. It seems pretty obviously true given media reports (yes the media focuses on the bad outcomes, but that is also the information a reasonable person has surely?).
Though of course, that isn't what the federal charges are. The obstruction of justice charges are what they always get you on and the other ones are all about the threats not the outcome.
Oh and I should mention those 20-gigabit satellite downlinks are running 24x7x365. Those satellites manage to always have a perfect connection to the ground stations - they're never on the wrong side of the planet or something.
Most of the time there have been 2 Landsat satellites active, so you are claiming that those satellites have almost 20-gigabit downlinks to earth. Yeah, not a chance.
Maybe check for reasonableness before making your arguments? Since those numbers don't pass the smell test.
I think you mean 17 days since 18400 * 1000 * 8 / 100 / 60 / 60 / 24 happens to be about 17.
They aren't just banned from selling cell phones to the US.
They are banned from any transaction direct or indirect involving technology and software (and commodities - no idea how broad that is) that ever touched the US. There's an awful lot of US companies with IP rights on technology and software (even if they are manufactured in China).
They could try and work around things, but that will increase costs and thus reduce their competitiveness. And the US is likely to put pressure on friendly governments to enforce this - and any company acting as a middleman risks getting a similar ban on themselves.
Of course, youtube aren't. They have the scale not to. So is your basic proposal that youtube should be forced to host content because they can do it cheaper? Liveleak hosts videos, I'm sure there are other places. And you just link them from the website and change the links when you get banned for whatever reason. But I thought avoiding the video provider was supposed to be aim?
If someone is evaluating a drug by watching videos rather than by reading then I guess they do need brain enhancement drugs, so I'll give you that the target market probably needs videos.
So both requiring running javascript on the browser to login and not actually providing any additional security for them (the hash is now the clear text password).
So to protect people who reuse passwords we prevent people who don't want to run javascript from logging in at all? Those people being protected could just use their own software to get the same effect without stopping non-js users from accessing the site at all.
How do you think they both check your password and allow you to change your password without ever having the clear text password available?
It's a trivial thing to do, by not thinking what you are doing through. For example, "Hey Bob, can you work on bug 127654 the "password reset fails in this obscure case" one?". Bob then adds "log(form.getAll().toPrettyString())" to the reset code and either leaves in his debugging output when he checks in the actual fix or modifies production directory if it's a cowboy development shop.
You upload the video files to an amazon/google/etc cloud storage server and set it to be publically accessible. And then link to them (or embed them even) from there.
It's what 3 cents per GB per month storage and 10-20c per GB outgoing data?
You won't have millions of concurrent viewers. If you do you can spend some money on any of the numerous technologies that will support that with the revenue you can hopefully work out how to generate from those viewers.
Because a bunch of people don't want to block content they find offensive for themselves, they want to bock it for everyone.
And the government also requires some arbitrary things need to be blocked - for example, copyrighted materials that the copyright owner doesn't want there and things like child porn.
> If it's 600,000, that's less than a fine of $2 a customer.
Math is hard I guess.
> Later in the summary, it mentions millions of customers.
Reading is hard too I guess.(Yes it does mention millions, but plainly states that is for a different wells fargo rip off - who on earth banks with this company still?!?)
"Corporation pays $1 Billion off profits well in excess of that from this crime" and "Corporation does not have to help or settle with individual consumers who's car loans and credit scores were damaged by their actions" both seem to conflict with the bit in the summary (and article ) about $300 million in refunds.
Unless the refunds are less than what the customers were ripped off of course, in which case it might conflict with the first (though you didn't provide any support for your claim that they made over $1 billion from the crimes) and still certainly conflicts with the second.
When "the socialist isn't on the ballot so I'll vote tor the libertarian instead" doesn't seem completely insane you know the main candidates were truly terrible:)
It's almost like benefits and salary are both part of the compensation an employer gives you in exchange for your labor, and so more valuable (to the employer) or lower supply labor ends up getting higher benefits and salary than less valuable/higher supply labor.
Somehow hospitals have survived the existence of enzymes that eat flesh without the patients and staff all turning to goo. The wooden parts of the buildings have managed not to turn to goo despite wood eating enzymes existing.
So what? Don't watch the ones you don't like and watch the ones you like.
In other news, you won't like the vast majority of music on [insert music service/record company/etc here]. You won't like the vast majority of books published either. You will see no use or value in the vast majority of software published. You won't like the vast majority of movies released. Amazingly you can just listen/read/use/watch the ones you do see as good/useful/whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
The same way amazon does.
The brick & mortar equivalent would be a farmers' market or a flea market. If you have a problem with a product purchased is your dispute with the entity operating the stall you bought it from or with the entity running the entire market? I suspect you will in fact get a "the seller is liable not us" response.
If your Samsung phone explodes do you take it up with the T-mobile store you bought it from? Or do you take it up with the owners of the mall in which the T-mobile is located?
If you bought an exploding hoverboard on craigslist do you sue craiglist when your house burns down?
Amazon also does payment processing, but again, if you bought an exploding hoverboard on craigslist and paid via paypal do you sue paypal when your house burns down?
Amazon also often does shipping, but again if you bought that exploding hoverboard on craiglist and paid via paypal and it shipped via fedex do you sue fedex when your house burns down?
Maybe there's a point at which by handling so much of the process you become resposible. Though this particular judge clearly doesn't think so or thinks the line is even further down.
Glad to see the Republicans sticking to their principles.
I said "federal charges", that's a state charge. Which is obvious if you don't remove the context that states that and misquote by removing the word "with" in order to make your out of context snippet read less obviously like it is out of context. The actual text:
> who is facing state court charges including involuntary manslaughter, with false information and hoaxes, cyberstalking, threatening to kill another or damage property by fire, interstate threats, conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud - The Wichita Eagle
I'm trying really hard to Hanlon's razor, the removing of the "with" in the middle is making it hard though.
It would be "interesting" to have the government's lawyers arguing that a reasonable person would expect the police to shoot the victim of a false emergency call. It seems pretty obviously true given media reports (yes the media focuses on the bad outcomes, but that is also the information a reasonable person has surely?).
Though of course, that isn't what the federal charges are. The obstruction of justice charges are what they always get you on and the other ones are all about the threats not the outcome.
The answer will become obvious. There's a common theme you might pick up if you actually try reading them before making shit up about them.
Oh and I should mention those 20-gigabit satellite downlinks are running 24x7x365. Those satellites manage to always have a perfect connection to the ground stations - they're never on the wrong side of the planet or something.
17 years you say?
Most of the time there have been 2 Landsat satellites active, so you are claiming that those satellites have almost 20-gigabit downlinks to earth. Yeah, not a chance.
Maybe check for reasonableness before making your arguments? Since those numbers don't pass the smell test.
I think you mean 17 days since 18400 * 1000 * 8 / 100 / 60 / 60 / 24 happens to be about 17.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why would an explicitly political organization do that?
They aren't just banned from selling cell phones to the US.
They are banned from any transaction direct or indirect involving technology and software (and commodities - no idea how broad that is) that ever touched the US. There's an awful lot of US companies with IP rights on technology and software (even if they are manufactured in China).
They could try and work around things, but that will increase costs and thus reduce their competitiveness. And the US is likely to put pressure on friendly governments to enforce this - and any company acting as a middleman risks getting a similar ban on themselves.
Of course, youtube aren't. They have the scale not to. So is your basic proposal that youtube should be forced to host content because they can do it cheaper? Liveleak hosts videos, I'm sure there are other places. And you just link them from the website and change the links when you get banned for whatever reason. But I thought avoiding the video provider was supposed to be aim?
If someone is evaluating a drug by watching videos rather than by reading then I guess they do need brain enhancement drugs, so I'll give you that the target market probably needs videos.
So both requiring running javascript on the browser to login and not actually providing any additional security for them (the hash is now the clear text password).
So to protect people who reuse passwords we prevent people who don't want to run javascript from logging in at all? Those people being protected could just use their own software to get the same effect without stopping non-js users from accessing the site at all.
What other options? And why do nootropics ads need to be 10 minute long HD videos?
How do you think they both check your password and allow you to change your password without ever having the clear text password available?
It's a trivial thing to do, by not thinking what you are doing through. For example, "Hey Bob, can you work on bug 127654 the "password reset fails in this obscure case" one?". Bob then adds "log(form.getAll().toPrettyString())" to the reset code and either leaves in his debugging output when he checks in the actual fix or modifies production directory if it's a cowboy development shop.
Clear text passwords are now in the log files.
You upload the video files to an amazon/google/etc cloud storage server and set it to be publically accessible. And then link to them (or embed them even) from there.
It's what 3 cents per GB per month storage and 10-20c per GB outgoing data?
You won't have millions of concurrent viewers. If you do you can spend some money on any of the numerous technologies that will support that with the revenue you can hopefully work out how to generate from those viewers.
Not just look, are marketed as: https://www.amazon.com/Mchoice...
Because a bunch of people don't want to block content they find offensive for themselves, they want to bock it for everyone.
And the government also requires some arbitrary things need to be blocked - for example, copyrighted materials that the copyright owner doesn't want there and things like child porn.
> If it's 600,000, that's less than a fine of $2 a customer.
Math is hard I guess.
> Later in the summary, it mentions millions of customers.
Reading is hard too I guess.(Yes it does mention millions, but plainly states that is for a different wells fargo rip off - who on earth banks with this company still?!?)
"Corporation pays $1 Billion off profits well in excess of that from this crime" and "Corporation does not have to help or settle with individual consumers who's car loans and credit scores were damaged by their actions" both seem to conflict with the bit in the summary (and article ) about $300 million in refunds.
Unless the refunds are less than what the customers were ripped off of course, in which case it might conflict with the first (though you didn't provide any support for your claim that they made over $1 billion from the crimes) and still certainly conflicts with the second.
When "the socialist isn't on the ballot so I'll vote tor the libertarian instead" doesn't seem completely insane you know the main candidates were truly terrible :)
It's almost like benefits and salary are both part of the compensation an employer gives you in exchange for your labor, and so more valuable (to the employer) or lower supply labor ends up getting higher benefits and salary than less valuable/higher supply labor.
postmarked, you know the way it works now.
Somehow hospitals have survived the existence of enzymes that eat flesh without the patients and staff all turning to goo. The wooden parts of the buildings have managed not to turn to goo despite wood eating enzymes existing.
So what? Don't watch the ones you don't like and watch the ones you like.
In other news, you won't like the vast majority of music on [insert music service/record company/etc here]. You won't like the vast majority of books published either. You will see no use or value in the vast majority of software published. You won't like the vast majority of movies released. Amazingly you can just listen/read/use/watch the ones you do see as good/useful/whatever.