I always found that story odd. Setting aside believing the story in the first place, why would you ever want to wear clothes that only certain people could see?
Except, if you are reporting the fire, it will be your location data that's tracked, they don't need to figure out who owns the property, what their phone number is or where they are.
The software they obtained from another party and used to gather information on WiFi locations has the default setting of recording what they recorded. They, in fact, did not intend to collect the data, they merely failed to intend to not collect the data.
You do not "need" to use a computer for personal reasons at work. As long as the company is up front about the monitoring software on the computer it is your option whether you want to use it for personal reasons.
Just make sure the call is from the candidate they're advocating and not their opponent. I don't know about Canadian law but US political campaign calls are required to state who sponsored it. Unfortunately that notice is at the very end meaning you have to listen to the whole thing.
They didn't call it off, they paid out the amount that was supposed to be paid to the players. The controversy is that this amount was not the same as the amount the machine told the players they won.
If the government isn't involved to some extent it is extremely difficult for parents to limit access. However, if parents don't care it is easy for them to allow access regardless of government regulation.
It's only objectively wrong if you can prove that it happened differently. Doing so would require a time machine or FTL travel and an obscenely powerful telescope.
If you can't understand the contract, you shouldn't be signing it. Either talk to someone who understands it and is on your side until you understand it, or don't sign it. If people stuck to that, you would be able to do all those things (without needing legal advice) because the sellers would have to simplify their contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the fact that you might not win, it's that they can still use your entry (without paying you for it) if you don't.
I always found that story odd. Setting aside believing the story in the first place, why would you ever want to wear clothes that only certain people could see?
The recording industry still gets paid for the radio station whether you download it or not.
He didn't miss it, he specifically stated the problem in a way that avoids that particular point.
From the sound of it its not a "bible code" kind of code but more a mathematical/musical approach to writing.
That's kind of the problem, they don't know what the offending device/person/entity is and know of no way of tracking it
And if you don't, we'll keep bringing it to you until you do.
I believe the reason is so that if someone says they're innocent and is convicted of a crime they can't be convicted of perjury as well.
Except, if you are reporting the fire, it will be your location data that's tracked, they don't need to figure out who owns the property, what their phone number is or where they are.
No, the 10% get fired when their bosses find out that they're trying to help the customers.
The software they obtained from another party and used to gather information on WiFi locations has the default setting of recording what they recorded. They, in fact, did not intend to collect the data, they merely failed to intend to not collect the data.
By that logic they have the potential to have a really good spam filter too, they just never actually did it.
A better analogy would be if you put in $1 and the machine said you put in $0.10. In that case I'm fairly sure you could complain.
You can however require that the software be installed on any computer that uses the company network or even on any computer that's in the building.
You do not "need" to use a computer for personal reasons at work. As long as the company is up front about the monitoring software on the computer it is your option whether you want to use it for personal reasons.
Just make sure the call is from the candidate they're advocating and not their opponent. I don't know about Canadian law but US political campaign calls are required to state who sponsored it. Unfortunately that notice is at the very end meaning you have to listen to the whole thing.
Because when the errors are $0 people point it out to the officials and the machine is inspected without anyone playing it, hence no news.
They paid for a chance to win, and the machine told them they'd won.
They paid for a chance to win and they did, receiving an amount of money appropriate to their wager and the level of progression on the machine.
They didn't call it off, they paid out the amount that was supposed to be paid to the players. The controversy is that this amount was not the same as the amount the machine told the players they won.
If the government isn't involved to some extent it is extremely difficult for parents to limit access. However, if parents don't care it is easy for them to allow access regardless of government regulation.
Religion doesn't need proof because proof isn't part of its own foundation, science needs proof.
It's only objectively wrong if you can prove that it happened differently. Doing so would require a time machine or FTL travel and an obscenely powerful telescope.
Unless you're diagnosed as a kleptomaniac.
If you can't understand the contract, you shouldn't be signing it. Either talk to someone who understands it and is on your side until you understand it, or don't sign it. If people stuck to that, you would be able to do all those things (without needing legal advice) because the sellers would have to simplify their contracts.
At least Google is only using that data themselves rather than selling it to anyone and everyone. (at least for now)