1) They were no longer in his house. So "tough shit" doesnt really apply, does it?
2) Because "we" already have, and found him guilty of using UNREASONABLE force.
Do you understand the difference between shooting someone wwho is an immediate, palpable threat to you (which they werent) and shooting someone who is running directly away from you? If you dont then you are a sociopath.
I really doubt that he would have recieved a "pat on teh back" for shooting people runnning away from you.
Except if EVERYONE allows smokers, there is no place for the nonsmokers to go.
Which was the situation in the UK before the smoking ban. Not a single pub or club banned smoking prior to the ban, so where do you go if you dont want to smell like an ashtray?
Sorry, if you want to give yourself cancer, smoke outside, let everyone else actually enjoy the place.
So if you dont perform due dilligence (yes, this applies when buying items to resell) you shoudl somehow not be responsible for the products you sell, claiming ignorance that was entirely avoidable?
Irrational fear of people who dont stick their dicks where you like to, and atempting to enforce and justify this irrational fear, deserves being knocked back very forcefully.
Sadly belief in an imaginary being is only deemed "insanity" when it isnt a recognised imaginary sky friend.
In that case the system has failed to meet the stated requirements: ensuring attendance.
UK schools dont rely on this, they rely on teachers actually recognising who they are teaching. Simple method, requires a bit of brainpower from the teacher though.
Agreed. One of the more bizarre laws the US has that seems certain to incite continual negaitve feelings towards a government you can never participate in.
Agreed. Essentially legalised slavery (you have no choice in working) meaning the US can "compete" with China on various items, such as military uniforms.
Slashdot Mirror
Dont ask dont tell is sound?
Really?
Idiot.
Wars of Aggression are war crimes.
Mainly this is lawyers not acting under direction from a client. Which is entirely against the rules that lawyers are supposed to operate under.
Fingers crossed ACS Law will also get rapped, as they were doing the same using "assets" from DL
1) They were no longer in his house. So "tough shit" doesnt really apply, does it?
2) Because "we" already have, and found him guilty of using UNREASONABLE force.
Do you understand the difference between shooting someone wwho is an immediate, palpable threat to you (which they werent) and shooting someone who is running directly away from you? If you dont then you are a sociopath.
I really doubt that he would have recieved a "pat on teh back" for shooting people runnning away from you.
Um, why is it pointless? Or are you assuming only USians play steam?
Idiot.
Except you get a larger pool by allowing everyone in, which is why nonsmoking bars didnt work.
Or do you assume all bar owners were idiots for the last 40+ years of antismoking calls?
Except if EVERYONE allows smokers, there is no place for the nonsmokers to go.
Which was the situation in the UK before the smoking ban. Not a single pub or club banned smoking prior to the ban, so where do you go if you dont want to smell like an ashtray?
Sorry, if you want to give yourself cancer, smoke outside, let everyone else actually enjoy the place.
I dont like in the US, so the DMCA is entirely irrelevant.
Given it is part of due dilligence YES they should have done.
Either it is negligence on their part of deliberate violation. Ignorance of the requirements is, however, NO defence in this matter.
You're trying to say they didnt perform due dilligence and so shouldnt be liable for their negligence?
So if you dont perform due dilligence (yes, this applies when buying items to resell) you shoudl somehow not be responsible for the products you sell, claiming ignorance that was entirely avoidable?
Your "basically" is false.
Which tends to lead to a false conclusion. Not that you shoudl need telling of course...
Your definition of "family" is also way off.. 0 /10 for accuracy.
No, it really wasnt.
Irrational fear of people who dont stick their dicks where you like to, and atempting to enforce and justify this irrational fear, deserves being knocked back very forcefully.
Sadly belief in an imaginary being is only deemed "insanity" when it isnt a recognised imaginary sky friend.
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
That isnt reasonable self defnce. Also 19yr olds arent normally called "kids"
Without the rallies he would not have had the support to see the orders carried out.
N'burg rallies etc are well documented as providing the populist mandate.
Um no, thats the law.
If you sell something you, as the trader, have responsibilities. Failure to exercise due dilligence is negligence.
SO they didnt review the application, which contravenes their own rules?
No, they misrepresented the application by publishing it on the app store.
"get a clue" from someone who mentioned "took their word for it"
Classic.
For now.
Nothing stops Apple from restricting application installs in future versions of OSX. Nothing.
Do you not have any form of Unfair contract terms acts in the US, or anything at all consumer protection wise? What about fraud statutes?
In that case the system has failed to meet the stated requirements: ensuring attendance.
UK schools dont rely on this, they rely on teachers actually recognising who they are teaching. Simple method, requires a bit of brainpower from the teacher though.
For instance no background tasks unless approved by MS is moronic.
Having a twitter app on your home page that doesnt actually update until you launch = waste of space.
Agreed. One of the more bizarre laws the US has that seems certain to incite continual negaitve feelings towards a government you can never participate in.
Utterly stupid
Agreed. Essentially legalised slavery (you have no choice in working) meaning the US can "compete" with China on various items, such as military uniforms.
Horrific idea really.
Except of course you dont actually lease the game, and it si a strict Sale.
At least in UK law it would be :)
Or, knowing that the police have a history of overreaching their authority, perhaps it is just a sing that she is interested in protecting herself?
Your bias is telling here.