I know your post was sacastic, but see Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969).
In Mapp and Weeks, the defendant against whom the evidence was held to be inadmissible was the victim of the search. However, in the cases before us each petitioner demands retrial if any of the evidence used to convict him was the product of unauthorized surveillance, regardless of whose Fourth Amendment rights the surveillance violated. At the very least, it is urged that if evidence is inadmissible against one defendant or conspirator, because tainted by electronic surveillance illegal as to him, it is also inadmissible against his codefendant or coconspirator.
This expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment and of the exclusionary rule fashioned to enforce it is admittedly inconsistent with prior cases, and we reject it. The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.
I fail to see your logic, there is no independent group in charge of banning people from the PSN. If Sony decides to ban you, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, regardless of the reason they ban you. Before you respond about your rights as a consumer, you have none in this instance, the PSN is a private network and they can change the EULA at any time.
So your fear is that steve jobs would endanger other passengers, on other planes, by possessing shurikens on his private plane? I can see it now
Pilot: Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing, it appears Steve Jobs has flown up next to us and lodged a shuriken in our fuselage
I have never visited the above site before, and currently have no-script enabled in firefox. The above page still automatically redirects for me. I've purged my whitelist of any websites I don't frequent, but am still unable to cancel the redirect. So I ask, how did you configure no-script not to redirect from the above url?
*Note I have visited sites before where the redirect was canceled by no-script, listing the targeted url for redirect.
It seems like that from my standpoint inside America. If they can offer a family plan at $25 per person/year, or half the current yearly rate, then there is no reason to increase the price other than they want more money.
I have no idea what a 360 controller costs to manufacture, but third-party manufacturers can sell them at a profit for $25. At over $40 I will never pay for such controllers, unless of course they're bundled with a console I want and the price is passed on that way. One other exception, I would gladly pay $60 for a controller, if I could be ensured it would be fully compatible with all consoles released by the same company in the future (or at least the next one).
I don't believe this is false advertising, as no one who purchased a console before the update was required to install the update. Sony is under no legal obligation to provide access to the PSN, and they are simply refusing to offer this service to consoles with outdated firmware. As for removing the option to install other OS, that is also Sony's choice for future firmware iterations as well as future console sales.
That being said I think its a shitty move on their part, but far from illegal unless they continue to advertise the feature.
This lock-in business is bullshit. They are offering a special promotion (which they have done before) which offers 1 year of service for a single payment of $40. After the year is up, your subscription renews itself at the "then current annual price after year one". On a side note, for the last 4 months of xbox live I have paid $11. They had a $1 for 1 month promotion, and then a 3 months for half price ($10) promotion. The current price per month is $8, this will be increasing to $10 per month. (unless you purchase a longer subscription)
Has anyone ever been arrested for this? If so I could completely understand. I personally don't believe this (warrantless tracking, not the bomber sticker thing) will be found constitutional if it is challenged in the supreme court. That won't stop police from doing this in the mean time however.
Um I'm not Canadian mister, and I believe we're talking about Canada here. Also I refuse to take any personal responsibility for the US laws, because by the time I personally was born, they were all(the ones that matter) established. It isn't like I have any choice whatsoever in the direction of my government. Sure can vote in politicians, but I can't change the viewpoints of millions of Americans who don't care about politics, or the ones who DO but disagree with me.
So sir, how about YOU take some "fucking personal responsibility" and stop posting like a troll. You didn't answer either of my questions, you didn't even state your point of view or point out where I am wrong, you're just a troll.
Ah yes, progress is being made however it can't even block java applets 100% of the time. This is due to chrome's design, not incompetence on the part of the extension developer. It also does not block inline scripts unless you disable javascript yourself, then enable individual scripts as needed (via notscripts). I'm sure there are other differences which are purely cosmetic that I would need to get used to. For these reasons, and the fact that I like firefox, I won't be switching in the foreseeable future.
I agree, and despite naysayers who bring up identity theft I think it is a good move. Identity theft is a crime, one which probably gets more police attention than malicious code in free browser extensions. My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose fees to release free extensions for browsers but thanks to your post I've changed my tune.
I still won't be switching to chrome. Why? Noscript, adblock (better in firefox I hear), and a few minor add-ons which I could live without without.
Yeah I didn't mean to imply a rape kit would prove anything one way or the other, just that without it there would be zero evidence whatsoever. According to the news tickers on the bottom of CNN, as well as several comments at the bottom of the page the charges have been dropped.
Killing him could make him a martyr, getting him convicted of rape would be an easy way to remove him from the spotlight while saving face. That being said, he could still be guilty legitimately. The problem is(assuming he is guilty), unless these women had rape kits the same night they were raped, there could be no evidence which could prove him guilty(short of a hidden camera). Personally I'll believe he is innocent unless there is proof otherwise.
Spot on. I have nothing against the poster, just the frequency of which I see this kind of mistake on slashdot lately(assuming it was an oversight). To reiterate in different words it feels to me like the summaries nowadays either have a spin on them or are not edited as carefully.
Advancing faster in a game because you paid money does not translate into unfair in every circumstance. For instance if I spend 3 hours a day playing some game with my friend, then he logs off but I play for a total of 6 hours we will eventually drift apart in experience. Now if he purchases an item which gives him double experience, he gains experience at an effective rate of 6 hours per day. In this scenario, it wouldn't be unfair, because it would still allow me to play on an equal footing with my friend. I'm sure others could relate to this hypothetical situation. The author of the article may have considered this, and worded his article accordingly. The summary makes a judgment, which the article does not.
Yeah if I were taking up an all tuna diet I would do research. However before reading the above posts, I wouldn't have thought eating say a can of tuna every other day would have any detrimental effect effect on my health. Now before reading the above posts, I wouldn't have done any research before increasing the amount of fish in my diet(by a reasonable amount), and as everyone above says most species of fish contain mercury, this could have been a problem.
Tibit did some math in an earlier post saying one pound of tuna was 13 times over the EPA limit. The average can of tuna, would be about 5 ounces. A single can of tuna is (according to the above math) still 4 times above the limit. So the limit won't allow for even 2 full cans of tuna per week, without breaching it. This is assuming you are not eating a larger can of tuna, or being contaminated by any other sources of mercury. Eating a can of tuna every other day, would be almost twice the EPA's limit in any given week(assuming no other mercury in your diet). Eating 3.5 double cheeseburgers (from anywhere) per week won't kill you, but eating 3.5 cans of tuna could easily lead to mercury poisoning which just might. Just trying to point out, that does not seem like a lot of tuna, for people not in the know. I do not know at what rate the body gets rid of mercury, so if the above line of reasoning is incorrect please do correct me(with cites).
Now I'm not defending eating fish all day everyday and complaining when you get sick, but at such high levels of mercury it is EASY to see how one could get mercury poisoning from eating to much fish, especially if the numbers provided are accurate. Maybe there should be a disclaimer on the side of the tuna can: SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING DO NOT EAT 2 CANS PER WEEK (or more).
I did not know that tuna contained mercury till I read this post. I think you over-estimate how many Americans research the contents of the food they consume. That being said, I've never been a big fan of tuna.
FYI you are not required to purchase content while playing Eve Online. All content expansions are included with your subscription cost. The first month is $5 more expensive, but it is passed off as an account activation fee. The account activation fee can be avoided if a friend gives you a PLEX (pilots license extension) or you are able to obtain one before your trial ends.
Otherwise I thought your post was pretty accurate.
I have no idea what is wrong with it. My comment was clearly formatted with lines inbetween before I posted. Pressing enter just sends an extra blank character, which tells the browser to render it the next line down. Or at least that is how I've always understood it. I post on other websites, and have never had this problem lol.
Lets see if this is a line down.
I created this account specifically to reply to this post.
He defines 'aggressive monetization' to mean how much money will advance you 'unfairly' in the game.
Does not accurately represent the linked article. In the first paragraph:
For the purposes of this post, I'm defining "aggressive" as the sale of items that impact gameplay and/or speed up a player's progress, in addition to other, less controversial premium features like aesthetic items and account personalization.
Nowhere does it mention the word 'fair' or any variation of the word in the entire article. I have no comment on the linked article's content, just that slashdot has been filled with crap like this more and more often lately. I won't be continuing to visit slashdot(and my brand new account will go to waste) if this sort of posting does not stop.
That is all.
Slashdot Mirror
I know your post was sacastic, but see Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969).
In Mapp and Weeks, the defendant against whom the evidence was held to be inadmissible was the victim of the search. However, in the cases before us each petitioner demands retrial if any of the evidence used to convict him was the product of unauthorized surveillance, regardless of whose Fourth Amendment rights the surveillance violated. At the very least, it is urged that if evidence is inadmissible against one defendant or conspirator, because tainted by electronic surveillance illegal as to him, it is also inadmissible against his codefendant or coconspirator.
This expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment and of the exclusionary rule fashioned to enforce it is admittedly inconsistent with prior cases, and we reject it. The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.
I fail to see your logic, there is no independent group in charge of banning people from the PSN. If Sony decides to ban you, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, regardless of the reason they ban you. Before you respond about your rights as a consumer, you have none in this instance, the PSN is a private network and they can change the EULA at any time.
So your fear is that steve jobs would endanger other passengers, on other planes, by possessing shurikens on his private plane? I can see it now
Pilot: Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing, it appears Steve Jobs has flown up next to us and lodged a shuriken in our fuselage
I have never visited the above site before, and currently have no-script enabled in firefox. The above page still automatically redirects for me. I've purged my whitelist of any websites I don't frequent, but am still unable to cancel the redirect. So I ask, how did you configure no-script not to redirect from the above url? *Note I have visited sites before where the redirect was canceled by no-script, listing the targeted url for redirect.
Nope I don't work at Sony, and IANAL, this is just my opinion.
It seems like that from my standpoint inside America. If they can offer a family plan at $25 per person/year, or half the current yearly rate, then there is no reason to increase the price other than they want more money.
I have no idea what a 360 controller costs to manufacture, but third-party manufacturers can sell them at a profit for $25. At over $40 I will never pay for such controllers, unless of course they're bundled with a console I want and the price is passed on that way. One other exception, I would gladly pay $60 for a controller, if I could be ensured it would be fully compatible with all consoles released by the same company in the future (or at least the next one).
I don't believe this is false advertising, as no one who purchased a console before the update was required to install the update. Sony is under no legal obligation to provide access to the PSN, and they are simply refusing to offer this service to consoles with outdated firmware. As for removing the option to install other OS, that is also Sony's choice for future firmware iterations as well as future console sales.
That being said I think its a shitty move on their part, but far from illegal unless they continue to advertise the feature.
This lock-in business is bullshit. They are offering a special promotion (which they have done before) which offers 1 year of service for a single payment of $40. After the year is up, your subscription renews itself at the "then current annual price after year one". On a side note, for the last 4 months of xbox live I have paid $11. They had a $1 for 1 month promotion, and then a 3 months for half price ($10) promotion. The current price per month is $8, this will be increasing to $10 per month. (unless you purchase a longer subscription)
Has anyone ever been arrested for this? If so I could completely understand. I personally don't believe this (warrantless tracking, not the bomber sticker thing) will be found constitutional if it is challenged in the supreme court. That won't stop police from doing this in the mean time however.
So sir, how about YOU take some "fucking personal responsibility" and stop posting like a troll. You didn't answer either of my questions, you didn't even state your point of view or point out where I am wrong, you're just a troll.
http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/limitations/
Also can you provide a cite for anything suggesting Canadians may want a "1980s style US 'war on drugs'"?
I still won't be switching to chrome. Why? Noscript, adblock (better in firefox I hear), and a few minor add-ons which I could live without without.
Yeah I didn't mean to imply a rape kit would prove anything one way or the other, just that without it there would be zero evidence whatsoever. According to the news tickers on the bottom of CNN, as well as several comments at the bottom of the page the charges have been dropped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
Advancing faster in a game because you paid money does not translate into unfair in every circumstance. For instance if I spend 3 hours a day playing some game with my friend, then he logs off but I play for a total of 6 hours we will eventually drift apart in experience. Now if he purchases an item which gives him double experience, he gains experience at an effective rate of 6 hours per day. In this scenario, it wouldn't be unfair, because it would still allow me to play on an equal footing with my friend. I'm sure others could relate to this hypothetical situation. The author of the article may have considered this, and worded his article accordingly. The summary makes a judgment, which the article does not.
On a side note, what does GP stand for?
Why wouldn't your (sober) friend just drive in that case?
Tibit did some math in an earlier post saying one pound of tuna was 13 times over the EPA limit. The average can of tuna, would be about 5 ounces. A single can of tuna is (according to the above math) still 4 times above the limit. So the limit won't allow for even 2 full cans of tuna per week, without breaching it. This is assuming you are not eating a larger can of tuna, or being contaminated by any other sources of mercury. Eating a can of tuna every other day, would be almost twice the EPA's limit in any given week(assuming no other mercury in your diet). Eating 3.5 double cheeseburgers (from anywhere) per week won't kill you, but eating 3.5 cans of tuna could easily lead to mercury poisoning which just might. Just trying to point out, that does not seem like a lot of tuna, for people not in the know. I do not know at what rate the body gets rid of mercury, so if the above line of reasoning is incorrect please do correct me(with cites).
Now I'm not defending eating fish all day everyday and complaining when you get sick, but at such high levels of mercury it is EASY to see how one could get mercury poisoning from eating to much fish, especially if the numbers provided are accurate. Maybe there should be a disclaimer on the side of the tuna can: SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING DO NOT EAT 2 CANS PER WEEK (or more).
I did not know that tuna contained mercury till I read this post. I think you over-estimate how many Americans research the contents of the food they consume. That being said, I've never been a big fan of tuna.
Otherwise I thought your post was pretty accurate.
(right now in fact)
I've been visiting slashdot for at least a year or two. Before I registered (today) I never realized how complex of a website it is.
I have no idea what is wrong with it. My comment was clearly formatted with lines inbetween before I posted. Pressing enter just sends an extra blank character, which tells the browser to render it the next line down. Or at least that is how I've always understood it. I post on other websites, and have never had this problem lol. Lets see if this is a line down.
Dear god I didn't realize it would remove every newline I inserted manually.
I created this account specifically to reply to this post. He defines 'aggressive monetization' to mean how much money will advance you 'unfairly' in the game. Does not accurately represent the linked article. In the first paragraph: For the purposes of this post, I'm defining "aggressive" as the sale of items that impact gameplay and/or speed up a player's progress, in addition to other, less controversial premium features like aesthetic items and account personalization. Nowhere does it mention the word 'fair' or any variation of the word in the entire article. I have no comment on the linked article's content, just that slashdot has been filled with crap like this more and more often lately. I won't be continuing to visit slashdot(and my brand new account will go to waste) if this sort of posting does not stop. That is all.