On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
That is precisely correct. In a country governed by a rule of law, the correct place to state your case is in court, when you sue the shit out of everybody, not getting physical with the cops.
If you don't like it, move to a place with no rule of law, like, say, Somalia or the Caliphate.
Fine, have a separate contract for the difference.
Lessee pays the artificially inflated rent as per lease agreement. Landlord pays difference back to lessee for some other contracted service.
All paperwork checks out.
Until the landlord, who has already committed criminal fraud decides to screw the tenant over. What can the tenant do? File a lawsuit? And swear under penalty of perjury that they also committed criminal fraud?
Not only would I not do business with a landlord who would propose such a thing, I'd immediately report it to Rentberry and the police. It's a crime.
Depends on how many units the company handles. Statistical evidence, like thousands of applications, and zero going to blacks or latinos, despite being half the applicants, is a company that has serious problems.
Yeah I missed that. The obvious solution is for the landlord and his preferred tenant to collude: Landlord asks an artificially high price. Tenant agrees to that price. Landlord then kicks back to the tenant the difference between the agreed-upon price and fair market value. Tenant and landlord are happy; Rentberry gets nothing.
Until Rentberry demands copies of the lease, which say the renter pays the artificially high price, and the landlord realizes he (having already proven, conclusively, that he's willing to commit criminal fraud - by doing so) can enforce that rent.
I'd be really surprised if they're not already requiring a copy of the lease. For that reason.
When I search at the metasearch travel sites, they show me round trip prices. Do people book flights without looking at the actual price? If it seems high, try searching for two one way trips, and compare. Is that rocket science? Can people actually compare two numbers and determine which one is higher? Or is that too much to ask these days?
There's a huge difference between a third-party (who wasn't part of a conversation/event) recording something, and a visible participant/witness recording something, even if the recording is secret.
In fact, no, there isn't, in California (or any other all-party consent state, but in California, it's a felony. What part of it's a felony is so hard to understand? The completely ignorance of the law and refusal to listen is why these guys are going prison because it's a felony in California to record audio without the permission of everyone if there is an expectation of privacy.
If you don't like it, avoid California. Seriously, because it's a felony
Since journalists aren't allowed to secretly record people without permission either, your entire response is pointless and irrelevant. If they worked for the New York Times, they'd be facing the same charges for the same crimes. And rightly so. Otherwise, anyone claiming to be a journalist could record you masturbating to goat porn in your bedroom and claim first amendment protection when they put it up on Facebook. (See how easy that slippery slope straw man is?)
There are no first amendment issues here. Only privacy issues in a state where audio recordings without the consent of all parties is a felony.
You do not have the right to film the police all the time, anywhere. Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.
This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded, but they are still a private organization. In their own offices, they have an expectation of privacy, unless they knowingly give it up> You cannot knowingly give it up if you being secretly recorded.
Some states (and, IIRC, federal law) require the consent of only one party to record. California is not one of them. Some states that require all-party consent treat it as a civil offense - you can sue someone who records you without permission. California is not one of them. Some states treat it as a misdemeanor - you can go to jail for it. California is not one of them.
California has made audio recordings, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without permission from all parties, a felony. 14 people secretly recorded, 14 charges (plus on for conspiracy).
These yahoos chose California from the perception (not especially accurate) that it is the most eeeeeevillllll librul state, and thus, most likely to get them footage they could edit into something that will get them a lot of money.
They choose poorly. Now they get to pay the price.
Only if "enough" is "more than they can make by not doing so." Since this is projected to be worth billions, ISPs will figure out what selling personalized data on people who can change the law is bad for business.
And strictly speaking, I doubt there would even need to be a legal change. Claim it's a national security threat with a straight face, and a National Security Letter will put a quick end to anything the powers that be don't like.
You are entirely correct. It was the same when I was running a web store in the 90s. It took me all of 30 seconds to figure out that the only thing a Certificate Authority is certifying is that your credit card didn't bounce, and the only thing they're an authority on is processing credit cards.
The ability to find out what people, in general, think of a movie before shelling out $20+ to see it will, in fact, destroy the current Hollywood business model. They need to completely alter how they approach the business.
They need to start making movies that don't suck throbbing purple donkey dick. Then, Rotten Tomatoes is, literally, the best thing that could possibly happen to them.
If your business depends on people not knowing what they're buying from you, you're a con artist.
So you feel that the people who record the audio book, the voice actors, the sound engineers, etc., provide no added value and deserve nothing for their efforts?
1. That book always looks new on whichever reader or tablet you might be using;
Assuming you're allowed to transfer it to a new device. That can be problematic already, and history shows us that even if you're allowed to now, policies can change tomorrow.
2. You do not need a bookshelf/s for all the books that you want: it's all in your Amazon/Barnes/whatever account
But you do need power to charge your book reader, and if you drop your book in the bathtub, you drop all your books in the bathtub.
3. All your books are easy to find, and search. That physical copy of 'The Three Musketeers' that you once had may have been lost when I was shifting from Santa Clara to Charlotte. Whereas if I have my iPad, I can find and read my books anywhere.
But you can't loan them to a friend, or five friends, or donate them to the library when you're done with them.
There certainly are advantage to ebooks, but there are disadvantages, too. Overall, I don't think either is superior to the other. That said, I haven't bought a paper book in years either, but then, I know how to make actual backups of my purchases, encrypted or not. And if I lose that ability, I'll stop buying ebooks.
Seems to be somewhere between Roll20 and Battlegrounds, only it's not actually clear there's a map sharing component to it. Or maybe it's just a cheap imitation of Hero Lab, only it likely won't be cheap.
If you can "access your character offline," that means a local client. That means that cross-compatibility will be . . . problematic, at best, and non existent for some platforms.
About half of the comments in the Reddit thread say that the subscription model is a deal killer, period. (It certainly is for me.)
Hasbro has a history of producing crappy electronic material for D&D, that isn't nearly as capable of stuff already available for less (or free), then abandoning it. No reason to expect this to be any different.
If it's a VTT, it's going to be a crappy one. If it's not, it's even more useless. And it's really hard to imagine it will do anything that MapTool can't.
Some, like Battlegrounds, are extremely good at handling any flavor of d20 systems, and are very, very easy to learn to use. Some, like Roll20, are less versatile, but have free versions, and run in a browser and are thus truly (as) cross-platform (as anything can be). And some, like MapTool, are completely free, with an active support community that is very user friendly, and a macro language that can do virtually anything if you work at it.
This is yet another attempt by Hasbro to turn tabletop gaming into computer gaming, which demonstrates, yet again, that they have absolutely no clue what tabletop gaming is, or what the appeal is, but they know that there are people with money they aren't giving to Hasbro, and dammit! that's not acceptable!
The internet is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet that you wouldn't do in your front yard. To expect more privacy than that is to completely, utterly fail to understand the internet.
If I lived a little closer to their headquarters, I'd start a private RICO lawsuit. Even if the feds pick it up (and they should), I'd still get a cut of the billions in penalties. I wonder if I could crowd-source the legal fees to get that going?
Slashdot Mirror
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
This is truly groundbreaking, because different artificial sweeteners have wildly different compositions.
That that suggests is that only demented people drink sodas with artificial sweetener.
This is not all that outrageous a thought.
Technically, the same is true of petroleum, too. Just on a much longer time scale.
So, clearly, we need nuclear powered cars", because the only true energy source is uranium!
For three more years. Then it's be the perfect bitch for every malware distributor in the world.
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
That is precisely correct. In a country governed by a rule of law, the correct place to state your case is in court, when you sue the shit out of everybody, not getting physical with the cops.
If you don't like it, move to a place with no rule of law, like, say, Somalia or the Caliphate.
Fine, have a separate contract for the difference.
Lessee pays the artificially inflated rent as per lease agreement.
Landlord pays difference back to lessee for some other contracted service.
All paperwork checks out.
Until the landlord, who has already committed criminal fraud decides to screw the tenant over. What can the tenant do? File a lawsuit? And swear under penalty of perjury that they also committed criminal fraud?
Not only would I not do business with a landlord who would propose such a thing, I'd immediately report it to Rentberry and the police. It's a crime.
Depends on how many units the company handles. Statistical evidence, like thousands of applications, and zero going to blacks or latinos, despite being half the applicants, is a company that has serious problems.
Yeah I missed that. The obvious solution is for the landlord and his preferred tenant to collude: Landlord asks an artificially high price. Tenant agrees to that price. Landlord then kicks back to the tenant the difference between the agreed-upon price and fair market value. Tenant and landlord are happy; Rentberry gets nothing.
Until Rentberry demands copies of the lease, which say the renter pays the artificially high price, and the landlord realizes he (having already proven, conclusively, that he's willing to commit criminal fraud - by doing so) can enforce that rent.
I'd be really surprised if they're not already requiring a copy of the lease. For that reason.
When I search at the metasearch travel sites, they show me round trip prices. Do people book flights without looking at the actual price? If it seems high, try searching for two one way trips, and compare. Is that rocket science? Can people actually compare two numbers and determine which one is higher? Or is that too much to ask these days?
There's a huge difference between a third-party (who wasn't part of a conversation/event) recording something, and a visible participant/witness recording something, even if the recording is secret.
In fact, no, there isn't, in California (or any other all-party consent state, but in California, it's a felony . What part of it's a felony is so hard to understand? The completely ignorance of the law and refusal to listen is why these guys are going prison because it's a felony in California to record audio without the permission of everyone if there is an expectation of privacy.
If you don't like it, avoid California. Seriously, because it's a felony
Since journalists aren't allowed to secretly record people without permission either, your entire response is pointless and irrelevant. If they worked for the New York Times, they'd be facing the same charges for the same crimes. And rightly so. Otherwise, anyone claiming to be a journalist could record you masturbating to goat porn in your bedroom and claim first amendment protection when they put it up on Facebook. (See how easy that slippery slope straw man is?)
There are no first amendment issues here. Only privacy issues in a state where audio recordings without the consent of all parties is a felony.
You do not have the right to film the police all the time, anywhere. Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.
This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded, but they are still a private organization. In their own offices, they have an expectation of privacy, unless they knowingly give it up> You cannot knowingly give it up if you being secretly recorded.
Some states (and, IIRC, federal law) require the consent of only one party to record. California is not one of them. Some states that require all-party consent treat it as a civil offense - you can sue someone who records you without permission. California is not one of them. Some states treat it as a misdemeanor - you can go to jail for it. California is not one of them.
California has made audio recordings, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without permission from all parties, a felony. 14 people secretly recorded, 14 charges (plus on for conspiracy).
These yahoos chose California from the perception (not especially accurate) that it is the most eeeeeevillllll librul state, and thus, most likely to get them footage they could edit into something that will get them a lot of money.
They choose poorly. Now they get to pay the price.
Only if "enough" is "more than they can make by not doing so." Since this is projected to be worth billions, ISPs will figure out what selling personalized data on people who can change the law is bad for business.
And strictly speaking, I doubt there would even need to be a legal change. Claim it's a national security threat with a straight face, and a National Security Letter will put a quick end to anything the powers that be don't like.
You are entirely correct. It was the same when I was running a web store in the 90s. It took me all of 30 seconds to figure out that the only thing a Certificate Authority is certifying is that your credit card didn't bounce, and the only thing they're an authority on is processing credit cards.
The ability to find out what people, in general, think of a movie before shelling out $20+ to see it will, in fact, destroy the current Hollywood business model. They need to completely alter how they approach the business.
They need to start making movies that don't suck throbbing purple donkey dick. Then, Rotten Tomatoes is, literally, the best thing that could possibly happen to them.
If your business depends on people not knowing what they're buying from you, you're a con artist.
"We don't want to start putting in commercial opportunities that we think users don't want to interact with,"
If that were true, you wouldn't be talking about ads at all. Because your users don't want any ads in the product they bought.
So you feel that the people who record the audio book, the voice actors, the sound engineers, etc., provide no added value and deserve nothing for their efforts?
1. That book always looks new on whichever reader or tablet you might be using;
Assuming you're allowed to transfer it to a new device. That can be problematic already, and history shows us that even if you're allowed to now, policies can change tomorrow.
2. You do not need a bookshelf/s for all the books that you want: it's all in your Amazon/Barnes/whatever account
But you do need power to charge your book reader, and if you drop your book in the bathtub, you drop all your books in the bathtub.
3. All your books are easy to find, and search. That physical copy of 'The Three Musketeers' that you once had may have been lost when I was shifting from Santa Clara to Charlotte. Whereas if I have my iPad, I can find and read my books anywhere.
But you can't loan them to a friend, or five friends, or donate them to the library when you're done with them.
There certainly are advantage to ebooks, but there are disadvantages, too. Overall, I don't think either is superior to the other. That said, I haven't bought a paper book in years either, but then, I know how to make actual backups of my purchases, encrypted or not. And if I lose that ability, I'll stop buying ebooks.
I guess you've never heard of Calibre and Apprentice Alf.
Couple of thoughts:
Seems to be somewhere between Roll20 and Battlegrounds, only it's not actually clear there's a map sharing component to it. Or maybe it's just a cheap imitation of Hero Lab, only it likely won't be cheap.
If you can "access your character offline," that means a local client. That means that cross-compatibility will be . . . problematic, at best, and non existent for some platforms.
About half of the comments in the Reddit thread say that the subscription model is a deal killer, period. (It certainly is for me.)
Hasbro has a history of producing crappy electronic material for D&D, that isn't nearly as capable of stuff already available for less (or free), then abandoning it. No reason to expect this to be any different.
If it's a VTT, it's going to be a crappy one. If it's not, it's even more useless. And it's really hard to imagine it will do anything that MapTool can't.
There are, in fact, dozens of them, some of the many years old. There are so many, there are guides to choosing the right one.
Some, like Battlegrounds, are extremely good at handling any flavor of d20 systems, and are very, very easy to learn to use. Some, like Roll20, are less versatile, but have free versions, and run in a browser and are thus truly (as) cross-platform (as anything can be). And some, like MapTool, are completely free, with an active support community that is very user friendly, and a macro language that can do virtually anything if you work at it.
This is yet another attempt by Hasbro to turn tabletop gaming into computer gaming, which demonstrates, yet again, that they have absolutely no clue what tabletop gaming is, or what the appeal is, but they know that there are people with money they aren't giving to Hasbro, and dammit! that's not acceptable!
We have a class of people who:
1) Are law-abiding (even if they make use of every loophole in the book)
2) Widely recognized as leaders is a hyper-competitive environment
3) Not only survive, but thrive in that environment, and inspire others to excel as well
And the "experts" describe these people as having a disorder of some sort. They literally define business success as a mental illness.
The internet is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet that you wouldn't do in your front yard. To expect more privacy than that is to completely, utterly fail to understand the internet.
Compu Global Hyper Meganet
If I lived a little closer to their headquarters, I'd start a private RICO lawsuit. Even if the feds pick it up (and they should), I'd still get a cut of the billions in penalties. I wonder if I could crowd-source the legal fees to get that going?