Do you really think she'd shut up without a phone? She'd probably just choose the nearest thing with ears, probably you, and start yammering at that. Now, instead of just being a noisy distraction, she's a noisy distraction that's actively competing for your attention.
I remember seeing an article a while ago talking about distribution of media and technologies. Porn and Redtube specifically were mentioned. Apparently sites like Redtube are used by the media copyright owners to upload clips of their products for publicity. It's kind of like a movies trailers site for porn. So I have to wonder if this troll even has the proper authority to make such claims of redress, and if the clips they're targeting (if specified) were uploaded by the owners or not.
I don't know if Redtube really is a clip site, or it it's something more. I pretty much assume that porn sites are loaded with malware, but who knows.
By the way, as I've seen it mentioned that the troll lied to the judge and told them it was a p2p site, I wouldn't put any underhanded or illegal thing outside the realm of what they'd do.
They installed the poles to create the infrastructure because at the time, it was cheaper and faster than excavation. Of course, with the rising costs of replacing poles, the unsightliness of them, and the continuing costs of repairing them due to storms and vehicular accidents is causing them to seriously rethink placing them underground.
The actual "Free Market" is an economic utopian theory, and like all the other utopian theories, it is unrealistic and doesn't exist. All the stuff that claims to be a free market, is either lying, or stupid.
Because they are delivering "data" rather than "phone" or "television". That same dodge has been used in a lot of places, including here, to screw with internet providers trying to get access to the backbone or homes.
ianal, on the other hand, I've seen discussions on the change to the file first system, and they (actual patent lawyers) state explicitly that filing first in no way circumvents or invalidates prior art. So no, if their patent is basically bitcoin without mentioning bitcoin as prior art, they are up the creek without a paddle as soon as either someone fights it, or someone at the patent office pulls their head out of their ass. So look at it this way, just because nobody has patented fire or throwing rocks, you can't either, it's already known and you did NOT invent it.
Actually she does, but only rarely. On those rare occasions, everyone shuts up and listens to her, then when she's said her piece, they usually go right back to whatever stupidity prompted her to speak in the first place.
No, the UK has a president, they just call him a Prime Minister, but it's still the equivalent job. To pull out a colloquialism, Horse of a different colour and all that.
I've lived in the UK for a few years. I also looked up some of the legal issues regarding the monarchy, and watched it in action. The way it currently stands, they have very little actual power beyond that of any other obscenely rich person. On the other hand, they have a lot of influence. So they may not be able to wield the law like a scythe, but there words can and do make things happen. Then again, I've seen the queen try to quell stupidity in the houses, and though they quietly listened, it didn't do a damn bit of good.
The first one was, imo, a sarcastic jab at the people that make the exact same blanket statements regarding the USA. It certainly was NOT without reason. Anonymous Coward, are you new to Slashdot ?
Marriage is not a breeding license, so your argument is invalid. It does not take a 3/4 majority vote to allow this any more than setting up the christian monument did. Again, your argument is invalid.
It isn't about offending someone, it's about being treated fairly. Religious discrimination is not allowed in this country, it's one of our founding principles and enshrined in law. On top of that, have you ever heard of "The Tyranny of the Masses"? It's the reason why there are many things the 'majority' can't be allowed to do for the very reason that it oppresses the minority, something that is not allowed. I would say that your argument is not only invalid, it is rife with massive misunderstanding of the our laws and ideals. I have to ask, have you ever read the Constitution, much less any of the writings our our founding fathers? (There's a LOT of that, just check your library, they're bound to have at least a dozen relevant books, and no, I don't mean anything published in the last 20 or so years by revisionists.)
Ok, we need comfy lawn chairs, popcorn, chips, and soda (diet for me). Sandwiches and beer (or other adult beverages) would be good too. Then find a location we can set up for the party because this is going to be one heck of fireworks show!:D
It's not outside what's believable for the nsa to say anything they think will make them sound better and more skilled than they actually are, including falsely reporting successful operations that never happened.
When music streaming started, they paid Riaa nothing. When Riaa made a fuss, they agreed to pay the same as radios pay. After all, it's basically the same thing, but over the net instead of the air. Riaa wouldn't agree to that and threw lots of lawyers at everyone. In the end, the streamers had to pay SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than radio stations. Most of the streamers died or quit very quickly after that.
This entire mess has been well documented. Now it looks like we get to document the last days of the few survivors of the slaughter. Congratulations Riaa, you killed your godchildren.
Willingly allowing botnets to survive to collect data is much like a doctor with the cure letting a nasty disease to spread just to see who it infects and if anything interesting happens, and maybe loot a few corpses. It's not the Hippocratic Oath, rather it's more of a Hypocrite Oath.
To those who don't know those two, the Hippocratic Oath is the one doctors take to do no harm. Actually it's a lot more complex than that, but tv writers only use soundbites at best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
As to a Hypocrite, that's someone who indulges in Hypocrisy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Courts have already declared that those kinds of 'agreements' (this includes EULAs) can not remove rights, no matter what the agreement says. They're allowed to talk about it, and in a negative fashion, so long as they stick to facts and their opinions. (NDAs are a bit different.) For that matter, the clause saying you can't badmouth them apparently didn't exist at the time those people interacted with that company. So the company is trying to retroactively change the agreement, which is illegal. The threats the company sent, sure look like blackmail, or at least some form of illegal attempt to influence imo. (ianal) Don't forget that the company never delivered the contracted goods, so the contract was invalidated by them for failure to fulfill the contract. Heck, even the credit card company agreed to that and revoked payment. That company also used the logos of the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe improperly, without permission, and I believe, illegally. I know of know other reason to fake having endorsement by such "trust" organizations as those for any reason other than to run a con. Add that with the companies attempts at avoiding contact and keep as many details secret as they can, and you really have to wonder about their motives. In my case, it's more of a just how extensive and widespread their guilty actions are rather than a more common question of their guilt.
By the way, if that company were to legally prevail, it would be a horrible precedent. It would probably by about 3 seconds before most companies had the same kind of B.S. 'agreements' employed. You wouldn't be able to say or do anything bad about any company lest you be 'charged' a huge penalty. You probably couldn't even recommend a competitors product or store to a friend, since that would be an action that negatively affects a company. And when it comes to abusing laws, it's it's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.
You'd be amazed how many local regulations are NOT on the internet, or even in an electronic form. Around here, we have a law that doesn't let you hang laundry out to dry on one day of the week. (I forget if it's Wednesday or Thursday.) Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days.
Good luck finding those on the internet, despite them being real. The first one hasn't been invoked in a very long time, the second one prevented the arrest of a girl about a decade ago. (There may have been other incidents, but I'm not aware of them yet.)
Links to the relevant information would have been wonderful, but whether you like it or not, most of the law is not yet available like that. If you don't like it, either yell at the lawyers (kind of like tilting at windmills, except more expensive), or start a foundation or project that will resolve the issue by converting all those documents yourself. Good luck Quixote!
You'd be shocked just how often you already do that. After all, when was the last time you talked to the actual people that run a company? How about even just knowing who they were?
As to contacts, they often have ways of contacting their underlings in various countries, but your ability to access the real owners is rather limited, especially if you aren't a representative of a nations law enforcement.
If you've been following the politics of this for years, the republicans have created and supported the same basic thing on a state level, and have proposed it on the national level more than once. The difference is this one was supported by Obama, so of course in their current obstructionist fuck obama at any cost mindset, they are against this one.
This isn't the only time they've declared war on something they had previously supported just because Obama said, hey, that really is a good idea. There have been 3 proposals/bills I know of since Obama won that their authors, republicans, did an about face on the moment Obama voiced support for it. The republicans opposition towards anything that is supported by Obama has no meaning other than the old white boys thinking,"Not gonna let that darkie do nuthing".
(Or at least I'm assuming that's the main reason behind their lack of reasoning, racism and stupidity, because it's on the whole, completely irrational.) By the way, my guesses about their thoughts are based both on their actions and statements. (They've done everything except call him by a racial epithet. Correction, some of them have used racial epithets to refer to President Obama. So you can bet that since they are pretty much in lockstep, the others are thinking the same thing the others haven't yet publicly stated.)
Some utility companies want to support their customers, others, like the one in the article, would rather support increasing profits.
Where I live, there are 3 utility districts right together, but you don't get a choice as to which one you have. The one that likes building massive fancy office buildings for itself charges 30% and 40% more than the other two. They are getting power from the same feeds.
A few years back, a bill was defeated that would have given home owners with solar around a 20% premium above what the utilities were paying for other sources. That may have increased the number of solar providers, but it would have caused an immediate and distinct cost increase for everyone else. I was at the meetings, and I saw the projections.
For that matter, most utility companies are happy to have visitors to their meetings (most exceptions seem to be the greed based ones). Try going to a few, they are rather informative. You might learn a few new things. (I was often asked my opinion on things as well, since I wasn't part of the board.)
True, and to earn the hatred of all cat owners. Besides, a hose, supersoaker, or the like works well. On the other hand, if you don't want to sit around waiting to soak the local felines, just go buy some of the scent based repellents. There are a number of them for sale in pet stores, and a bunch of old fashioned recipes you can make yourself. Killing or maiming someones pet is just going to get you in so much shit the cat poop would seem to be gold nuggets in comparison. (I know one person that ended up moving over the harassment he got when he shot a neighbors cat. Also, every potted plant and his entire lawn died. It's assumed that one or more persons put herbicide on all of them.) Same thing with dogs. Actually, any family pet.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think she'd shut up without a phone? She'd probably just choose the nearest thing with ears, probably you, and start yammering at that. Now, instead of just being a noisy distraction, she's a noisy distraction that's actively competing for your attention.
I remember seeing an article a while ago talking about distribution of media and technologies. Porn and Redtube specifically were mentioned. Apparently sites like Redtube are used by the media copyright owners to upload clips of their products for publicity. It's kind of like a movies trailers site for porn. So I have to wonder if this troll even has the proper authority to make such claims of redress, and if the clips they're targeting (if specified) were uploaded by the owners or not.
I don't know if Redtube really is a clip site, or it it's something more. I pretty much assume that porn sites are loaded with malware, but who knows.
By the way, as I've seen it mentioned that the troll lied to the judge and told them it was a p2p site, I wouldn't put any underhanded or illegal thing outside the realm of what they'd do.
Please stop looking for insults where none exist.
They installed the poles to create the infrastructure because at the time, it was cheaper and faster than excavation. Of course, with the rising costs of replacing poles, the unsightliness of them, and the continuing costs of repairing them due to storms and vehicular accidents is causing them to seriously rethink placing them underground.
The actual "Free Market" is an economic utopian theory, and like all the other utopian theories, it is unrealistic and doesn't exist. All the stuff that claims to be a free market, is either lying, or stupid.
Because they are delivering "data" rather than "phone" or "television".
That same dodge has been used in a lot of places, including here, to screw with internet providers trying to get access to the backbone or homes.
ianal, on the other hand, I've seen discussions on the change to the file first system, and they (actual patent lawyers) state explicitly that filing first in no way circumvents or invalidates prior art. So no, if their patent is basically bitcoin without mentioning bitcoin as prior art, they are up the creek without a paddle as soon as either someone fights it, or someone at the patent office pulls their head out of their ass.
So look at it this way, just because nobody has patented fire or throwing rocks, you can't either, it's already known and you did NOT invent it.
Actually she does, but only rarely. On those rare occasions, everyone shuts up and listens to her, then when she's said her piece, they usually go right back to whatever stupidity prompted her to speak in the first place.
No, the UK has a president, they just call him a Prime Minister, but it's still the equivalent job.
To pull out a colloquialism, Horse of a different colour and all that.
Trying to compare the Kardashians to the British Royal Family is like trying to compare dog poop to ambergris.
I've lived in the UK for a few years. I also looked up some of the legal issues regarding the monarchy, and watched it in action. The way it currently stands, they have very little actual power beyond that of any other obscenely rich person. On the other hand, they have a lot of influence. So they may not be able to wield the law like a scythe, but there words can and do make things happen. Then again, I've seen the queen try to quell stupidity in the houses, and though they quietly listened, it didn't do a damn bit of good.
The British monarchy is a figurehead.
The first one was, imo, a sarcastic jab at the people that make the exact same blanket statements regarding the USA.
It certainly was NOT without reason.
Anonymous Coward, are you new to Slashdot ?
Marriage is not a breeding license, so your argument is invalid.
It does not take a 3/4 majority vote to allow this any more than setting up the christian monument did. Again, your argument is invalid.
It isn't about offending someone, it's about being treated fairly. Religious discrimination is not allowed in this country, it's one of our founding principles and enshrined in law. On top of that, have you ever heard of "The Tyranny of the Masses"? It's the reason why there are many things the 'majority' can't be allowed to do for the very reason that it oppresses the minority, something that is not allowed. I would say that your argument is not only invalid, it is rife with massive misunderstanding of the our laws and ideals.
I have to ask, have you ever read the Constitution, much less any of the writings our our founding fathers? (There's a LOT of that, just check your library, they're bound to have at least a dozen relevant books, and no, I don't mean anything published in the last 20 or so years by revisionists.)
Ok, we need comfy lawn chairs, popcorn, chips, and soda (diet for me). :D
Sandwiches and beer (or other adult beverages) would be good too.
Then find a location we can set up for the party because this is going to be one heck of fireworks show!
I talked to someone back in the win3x days that deleted his DOS directory because he didn't know what it was, so he figured it wasn't important.
Not if they are subjected to Barrens chat or Whoreshire.
(If you've played, you know what those are.)
It's not outside what's believable for the nsa to say anything they think will make them sound better and more skilled than they actually are, including falsely reporting successful operations that never happened.
When music streaming started, they paid Riaa nothing.
When Riaa made a fuss, they agreed to pay the same as radios pay. After all, it's basically the same thing, but over the net instead of the air.
Riaa wouldn't agree to that and threw lots of lawyers at everyone.
In the end, the streamers had to pay SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than radio stations.
Most of the streamers died or quit very quickly after that.
This entire mess has been well documented. Now it looks like we get to document the last days of the few survivors of the slaughter.
Congratulations Riaa, you killed your godchildren.
Willingly allowing botnets to survive to collect data is much like a doctor with the cure letting a nasty disease to spread just to see who it infects and if anything interesting happens, and maybe loot a few corpses.
It's not the Hippocratic Oath, rather it's more of a Hypocrite Oath.
To those who don't know those two, the Hippocratic Oath is the one doctors take to do no harm. Actually it's a lot more complex than that, but tv writers only use soundbites at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
As to a Hypocrite, that's someone who indulges in Hypocrisy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Courts have already declared that those kinds of 'agreements' (this includes EULAs) can not remove rights, no matter what the agreement says.
They're allowed to talk about it, and in a negative fashion, so long as they stick to facts and their opinions. (NDAs are a bit different.)
For that matter, the clause saying you can't badmouth them apparently didn't exist at the time those people interacted with that company. So the company is trying to retroactively change the agreement, which is illegal.
The threats the company sent, sure look like blackmail, or at least some form of illegal attempt to influence imo. (ianal)
Don't forget that the company never delivered the contracted goods, so the contract was invalidated by them for failure to fulfill the contract. Heck, even the credit card company agreed to that and revoked payment.
That company also used the logos of the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe improperly, without permission, and I believe, illegally. I know of know other reason to fake having endorsement by such "trust" organizations as those for any reason other than to run a con. Add that with the companies attempts at avoiding contact and keep as many details secret as they can, and you really have to wonder about their motives. In my case, it's more of a just how extensive and widespread their guilty actions are rather than a more common question of their guilt.
By the way, if that company were to legally prevail, it would be a horrible precedent. It would probably by about 3 seconds before most companies had the same kind of B.S. 'agreements' employed. You wouldn't be able to say or do anything bad about any company lest you be 'charged' a huge penalty. You probably couldn't even recommend a competitors product or store to a friend, since that would be an action that negatively affects a company. And when it comes to abusing laws, it's it's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.
You'd be amazed how many local regulations are NOT on the internet, or even in an electronic form.
Around here, we have a law that doesn't let you hang laundry out to dry on one day of the week. (I forget if it's Wednesday or Thursday.)
Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days.
Good luck finding those on the internet, despite them being real. The first one hasn't been invoked in a very long time, the second one prevented the arrest of a girl about a decade ago. (There may have been other incidents, but I'm not aware of them yet.)
Links to the relevant information would have been wonderful, but whether you like it or not, most of the law is not yet available like that. If you don't like it, either yell at the lawyers (kind of like tilting at windmills, except more expensive), or start a foundation or project that will resolve the issue by converting all those documents yourself. Good luck Quixote!
You'd be shocked just how often you already do that.
After all, when was the last time you talked to the actual people that run a company?
How about even just knowing who they were?
As to contacts, they often have ways of contacting their underlings in various countries, but your ability to access the real owners is rather limited, especially if you aren't a representative of a nations law enforcement.
If you've been following the politics of this for years, the republicans have created and supported the same basic thing on a state level, and have proposed it on the national level more than once. The difference is this one was supported by Obama, so of course in their current obstructionist fuck obama at any cost mindset, they are against this one.
This isn't the only time they've declared war on something they had previously supported just because Obama said, hey, that really is a good idea. There have been 3 proposals/bills I know of since Obama won that their authors, republicans, did an about face on the moment Obama voiced support for it.
The republicans opposition towards anything that is supported by Obama has no meaning other than the old white boys thinking,"Not gonna let that darkie do nuthing".
(Or at least I'm assuming that's the main reason behind their lack of reasoning, racism and stupidity, because it's on the whole, completely irrational.)
By the way, my guesses about their thoughts are based both on their actions and statements. (They've done everything except call him by a racial epithet. Correction, some of them have used racial epithets to refer to President Obama. So you can bet that since they are pretty much in lockstep, the others are thinking the same thing the others haven't yet publicly stated.)
Some utility companies want to support their customers, others, like the one in the article, would rather support increasing profits.
Where I live, there are 3 utility districts right together, but you don't get a choice as to which one you have. The one that likes building massive fancy office buildings for itself charges 30% and 40% more than the other two. They are getting power from the same feeds.
A few years back, a bill was defeated that would have given home owners with solar around a 20% premium above what the utilities were paying for other sources. That may have increased the number of solar providers, but it would have caused an immediate and distinct cost increase for everyone else. I was at the meetings, and I saw the projections.
For that matter, most utility companies are happy to have visitors to their meetings (most exceptions seem to be the greed based ones). Try going to a few, they are rather informative. You might learn a few new things. (I was often asked my opinion on things as well, since I wasn't part of the board.)
True, and to earn the hatred of all cat owners.
Besides, a hose, supersoaker, or the like works well.
On the other hand, if you don't want to sit around waiting to soak the local felines, just go buy some of the scent based repellents. There are a number of them for sale in pet stores, and a bunch of old fashioned recipes you can make yourself.
Killing or maiming someones pet is just going to get you in so much shit the cat poop would seem to be gold nuggets in comparison.
(I know one person that ended up moving over the harassment he got when he shot a neighbors cat. Also, every potted plant and his entire lawn died. It's assumed that one or more persons put herbicide on all of them.)
Same thing with dogs. Actually, any family pet.