Given how easy it is in the UK: Yes, I would - and more to the point, friends have already been through this with AP and others
NOrmally a letter detailing the offence, setting out compensation (higher than normal photo rates as it was taken without permission) and mentioning reserving the right to take the matter to small claims court means they settle immediately. Magistrates take an inordintately dim view of companies fucking about with members of the public, and so most companies settle.
Being held in conditions described as torturous does merit "whining"
Given the USG was too scared to even allow the UN Torture commisioner the access required to assess Pvt Mannings holding conditions, it tells you this really isnt "whining" but legitimate criticism of inhuman conditions.
"Accidental" misspeaks such as "he was armed" (he wasnt) "he used his wife as a human shield" (he didnt) and "he was shot while firing back" (he was executed while unarmed as the US had no intention of taking him alive, as actually convicting him of anything based on evidence gained through torture would be...tricky)
The way they carried this out is a dark stain on US claims to be a civilised country.
If you're in the firing line of a judge who has already told you NO and yet you're filing for the exact same remedy (or, the same plus even MORE which is on the same line), you know it has no merit.
Its how it works in the UK, for the rear facing cameras. There are graduated markings in the road which are verified to the speed recorded by the radar.
That is what they intended; means fuck all considering that the guy was able to present sufficient doubt that they show a considerably different speed than that recorded by the radar
given the companies own experts did not come up with your interesting theory, and they designed the damn system, it casts doubt on your theory. Just a tad
To give you an idea: in the UK this is *exactly* what the photos are for: they corroborate the radar measurement, to show it was YOUR vehicle they were capturing.
SOmething they have no right to do, unless it is proffered up before a plain old sale is made.
Additionally: you appear to be clueless about what hte GPL actually does. THe GPL gives you rights to copy something you have acquired. EULAs attempt to restrict your rights to use the product you legally bought over the counter by pretending it is a "licence", and attempting to hold you to the terms of a contract you never saw.
Slashdot Mirror
Unauthorised SALE
Giving away /= sale
That would be a fair use of the trademark, and not something you can restrict
You are not causing dilution or confusion, after all.
WHcih would not apply to a US company that has no business interests in the UK
Actually that is the sign of a first world country
Good labour laws, which actually provide some protection for workers, is one of the defining characteristics of a civilised country.
It's the same. in fact, knowing the state of US consumer "protection" legislation, it's undoubtedly stronger than US laws.
Given how easy it is in the UK: Yes, I would - and more to the point, friends have already been through this with AP and others
NOrmally a letter detailing the offence, setting out compensation (higher than normal photo rates as it was taken without permission) and mentioning reserving the right to take the matter to small claims court means they settle immediately. Magistrates take an inordintately dim view of companies fucking about with members of the public, and so most companies settle.
Being held in conditions described as torturous does merit "whining"
Given the USG was too scared to even allow the UN Torture commisioner the access required to assess Pvt Mannings holding conditions, it tells you this really isnt "whining" but legitimate criticism of inhuman conditions.
"Accidental" misspeaks such as "he was armed" (he wasnt) "he used his wife as a human shield" (he didnt) and "he was shot while firing back" (he was executed while unarmed as the US had no intention of taking him alive, as actually convicting him of anything based on evidence gained through torture would be...tricky)
The way they carried this out is a dark stain on US claims to be a civilised country.
If you're in the firing line of a judge who has already told you NO and yet you're filing for the exact same remedy (or, the same plus even MORE which is on the same line), you know it has no merit.
Yes there is. Knowingly submitting cases which you know have no merit can lead to disbarrment.
You are allowed to say "no" to a client, and recuse yourself.
*note: not a lawyer, but work for a firm with a large number of them
Fuck thats expensive
unlimited texts
unlimited data
600 any network, any time minues
£20 per month
Even better - in the UK when switching between networks they are no longer allowed to take longer than 48 *hours* to transfer you, number and all.
He knows the length of the vehicle, so knows how far it travelled by superimposing.
It proves no such thing. It proves that your car was on the road. It proves something tripped the Radar. It does not prove the two are linked.
No, you are not. they have to prove culpability, not the other way around.
Its how it works in the UK, for the rear facing cameras. There are graduated markings in the road which are verified to the speed recorded by the radar.
At which point they have no correlation between the radar timing and the photo; its just proving that car was on the road at that time
They NEED the timestamp to have a prayer at convincing anyone that radar measurement A has anything to do with car in photo Y
I'm going for "wrong"
That is what they intended; means fuck all considering that the guy was able to present sufficient doubt that they show a considerably different speed than that recorded by the radar
given the companies own experts did not come up with your interesting theory, and they designed the damn system, it casts doubt on your theory. Just a tad
To give you an idea: in the UK this is *exactly* what the photos are for: they corroborate the radar measurement, to show it was YOUR vehicle they were capturing.
No, you can use GPL software however you like - if you want to copy and distribute it, THAT is when it comes into play
DRM can prevent you from even using it. Very different
SOmething they have no right to do, unless it is proffered up before a plain old sale is made.
Additionally: you appear to be clueless about what hte GPL actually does. THe GPL gives you rights to copy something you have acquired. EULAs attempt to restrict your rights to use the product you legally bought over the counter by pretending it is a "licence", and attempting to hold you to the terms of a contract you never saw.
ANd without copyright laws the need for the GPL is reduced, if not eliminated altogether.
Half the buses in our town have wifi....
Well it WOULD lose money, assuming the list price of Angry Birds was non-zero they still have to pay you 20% of that.
You'd stil have to be UTTERLY insane, or desperate, to sign up though.
GSA confirmed it was covered by the same certification.