It shouldn't even require a counter-suit. It should be automatic that, upon demonstrating the DMCA demand was wrong, bad, or deliberately fraudulent, the DMCA claimant is charged, say 10 times the claimant's own estimate of the damages they did, or could have, incurred due to the the so-called copyright infringement. (And DMCA claims should all require an estimate of damages if the claim is not resolved.)
I think you'd see false claims (by movie studios, in particular) dry up pretty damn fast.
I'm in a blue state, so the electors are going to the Democratic nominee, regardless of who is running on either side.
I'd vote for Sanders if he's on the ballot, but if I have to hold my nose while I choose between Hillary and Trump, I'll go ahead and throw my vote over to Trump.
I may not be able to contribute to the election of the president, but maybe I can hasten the destruction of the current Republican party, even if by only a tiny bit.
That was exactly what I said about Trump before the primaries started - that when people were actually standing in the polling booth, they would realize that maybe Trump isn't their candidate of choice.
Seems that I overestimated people a bit. Or maybe I underestimated their frustration with the system.
That's just it. The wedding wouldn't be legally recognized.
Most likely, trying to put a wedding date on a legal form with a date in the prohibited range would invite scrutiny and a visit to a reeducation camp. They'd also demand to know who performed this "fake" wedding and make sure he never performed another.
I think it would be worth most people's while to just wait out the ban.
Is marriage a religious thing in NK, or is it a government thing, requiring a civil servant like a justice of the peace?
If the former (if religion is even allowed), I'm sure all ministers are registered and have permits to operate. Just tell them not to perform weddings (or else).
If the later, then you just instruct all civil servants not to conduct weddings.
From what I read this morning, it may be because the U.S. has a separate tax agreement with Panama. So U.S. citizens may not have been able to hide stuff there as readily as people in other countries.
Remember, we... *ahem*... "liberated" them from their president in the late 1980's. I'm sure we got them to make all kinds of agreements while we occupied the country.
I do recall seeing a story about one of the earlier pinball machines with voice synthesis (called "Xenon" or something like that) and one of the things they mentioned was that they could compress a female voice better and fit more vocalizations into the machine.
I remember it would give a suggestive sigh when you put a quarter into it.
As a U.S.A.ian, I can confidently say that we are just waiting to see which of our politicians are mentioned in those documents so we can start calling for indictments against them. We generally love watching them fall on their asses.
Clinton seems like a slam-dunk. Sanders, kinda' doubtful. Obama, maybe. I'd give at least one Bush a high likelihood of being in there.
I guess I didn't completely understand the case. I thought the judge had only said that they intended to issue the order, but gave Apple a chance to respond. Apple was never even told that the FBI had asked for the AWA order. They found out about it from the FBI's press release.
That said, when Apple was actually allowed to respond to a AWA order in New York, the FBI got sent packing. That sounds like a much stronger precedent than this case. This case was decided by a judge only hearing one side of an argument with the other party not even present.
A lot of people expected this one to go the same way as New York, once the hearing started. It was pretty obvious the FBI was getting nervous about it.
In other news, I just beat the New England Patriots in a football game, single handed! The final score was 210 to 0. The fact that I didn't tell them I was planning to play against them today, and they weren't even in California at the time, in no way detracts from my historic victory.
Slashdot Mirror
They could put it in the center of the screen for better selfies!
It shouldn't even require a counter-suit. It should be automatic that, upon demonstrating the DMCA demand was wrong, bad, or deliberately fraudulent, the DMCA claimant is charged, say 10 times the claimant's own estimate of the damages they did, or could have, incurred due to the the so-called copyright infringement. (And DMCA claims should all require an estimate of damages if the claim is not resolved.)
I think you'd see false claims (by movie studios, in particular) dry up pretty damn fast.
I live in a grass hut, you insensitive clod!
I'm in a blue state, so the electors are going to the Democratic nominee, regardless of who is running on either side.
I'd vote for Sanders if he's on the ballot, but if I have to hold my nose while I choose between Hillary and Trump, I'll go ahead and throw my vote over to Trump.
I may not be able to contribute to the election of the president, but maybe I can hasten the destruction of the current Republican party, even if by only a tiny bit.
That was exactly what I said about Trump before the primaries started - that when people were actually standing in the polling booth, they would realize that maybe Trump isn't their candidate of choice.
Seems that I overestimated people a bit. Or maybe I underestimated their frustration with the system.
That's just it. The wedding wouldn't be legally recognized.
Most likely, trying to put a wedding date on a legal form with a date in the prohibited range would invite scrutiny and a visit to a reeducation camp. They'd also demand to know who performed this "fake" wedding and make sure he never performed another.
I think it would be worth most people's while to just wait out the ban.
Is marriage a religious thing in NK, or is it a government thing, requiring a civil servant like a justice of the peace?
If the former (if religion is even allowed), I'm sure all ministers are registered and have permits to operate. Just tell them not to perform weddings (or else).
If the later, then you just instruct all civil servants not to conduct weddings.
Well, my neighbor isn't quite dead yet, but he will be soon, I think.
Actually, he's not even sick. Some even might say he's a picture of health.
But _just in case_ he dies next week, when it would be very inconvenient, would it be OK if I bury him this week?
It's Washington D.C.
There are already plenty of sharks in the Capitol building.
What do I win?
A student loan.
So the first one gets destroyed by hitting a rock.
The other 99 get destroyed by hitting the debris from the first one.
It will be the younger Charleton Heston that time-traveled forward from the 1960's.
I think the GP's comment was much less about Apple and more about Tony Fadell, the Nest CEO.
From what I read this morning, it may be because the U.S. has a separate tax agreement with Panama. So U.S. citizens may not have been able to hide stuff there as readily as people in other countries.
Remember, we... *ahem*... "liberated" them from their president in the late 1980's. I'm sure we got them to make all kinds of agreements while we occupied the country.
Majel Barrett was the voice of the computer, you heathen! :)
Marina Sirtis was Counselor Troy.
I do recall seeing a story about one of the earlier pinball machines with voice synthesis (called "Xenon" or something like that) and one of the things they mentioned was that they could compress a female voice better and fit more vocalizations into the machine.
I remember it would give a suggestive sigh when you put a quarter into it.
As a U.S.A.ian, I can confidently say that we are just waiting to see which of our politicians are mentioned in those documents so we can start calling for indictments against them. We generally love watching them fall on their asses.
Clinton seems like a slam-dunk. Sanders, kinda' doubtful. Obama, maybe. I'd give at least one Bush a high likelihood of being in there.
Any other use of the data, like sharing it with third-party marketing programs, would require explicit consent from the customer.
And you will give your consent or you will simply not get internet service.
By year 5? Well...
The Zombie Apocalypse occurs?
So there was an attempt in Amsterdam, mugged in Marseilles, took a bullet in Bogota, and a robbery in Rio.
Sounds like you got the start of a good country song there.
You mean you weren't the first in line to buy a phone with the Clipper chip in it?
I guess I didn't completely understand the case. I thought the judge had only said that they intended to issue the order, but gave Apple a chance to respond. Apple was never even told that the FBI had asked for the AWA order. They found out about it from the FBI's press release.
That said, when Apple was actually allowed to respond to a AWA order in New York, the FBI got sent packing. That sounds like a much stronger precedent than this case. This case was decided by a judge only hearing one side of an argument with the other party not even present.
A lot of people expected this one to go the same way as New York, once the hearing started. It was pretty obvious the FBI was getting nervous about it.
In other news, I just beat the New England Patriots in a football game, single handed! The final score was 210 to 0. The fact that I didn't tell them I was planning to play against them today, and they weren't even in California at the time, in no way detracts from my historic victory.
"Mr. President, we must not allow a burner phone gap!"
- General Turgidson
Apple didn't start this case. The FBI did.
The FBI didn't even serve papers to Apple telling them. Apple found out about it from the FBI's news release.
Also, just imagine the damage it would do to Apple when the source code and the keys were leaked into the wild. That's "when", not "if".