"Chilling effect" is something the government does to Free Speech, and is illegal so they can't do it when the courts say they can't. Private organizations can't do it at all without your cooperation. Not even the NY Times. They can ask nice, but fuck 'em if I keep aggregating their shit.
What it says in paragraph 3 is, if the seller says it's new, it has to be new. It also says, in paragraph 4, if the seller says it's worth the same as something that's new, it doesn't have to be worth that much. And in paragraph 5 it says that the fine print of their sales pitch may give you no opportunity to recover even if they lied. So watch out for scammy wording. And in paragraph 6 it says it's not their fault if it broke in transit.
IANAL, but I'm probably better than yours.
Oh, and how much of a national freaking treasure is the Cornell University Law School. making of itself by putting this stuff online? I feel like I owe them a chunk of my estate as an endowment when I croak, and I didn't go anywhere near there. If I do decide to go to law school, they're #3 on the list of applications (behind Harvard, of course, and my nearest; Georgetown would be #4, and something online would be #5).
I didn't read TFA so I'm going to make the assumption that the packaging was pristine, including the peel-off plastic protector sheets, so the computer looked "new" until the point it was turned on.
Which leads to the simple conclusion that the computer was in fact a refurb, and the refurbisher did everything on the checklist except re-imaging the drive.
Simple mistake on the refurb's part. Plain fraud by someone who knew it was a refurb and labelled it new.
Depends how the encryption works. If it hides all of the encrypted tree in an encrypted file (e.g. a tarball) then corruption of the encrypted tree is just corruption of a file and not a matter for fsck to deal with. If it encrypts each file separately then fsck should be able to find and relink them to the lost+found the way it does when they're unencrypted.
Unless of course you create a filesystem named candlejack, then you're f
I practically grew an extra pair of fingers to make ctrl-K less trouble to type.
You do know you can snuggle the search box up next to the address box, right? All the buttons and boxes on one neat bar? And then if you demand it you can make the menu bar and address bar hide.
1. NYT's paywall is a stupid hack that your dog could code around.
2. Back when newspapers were necessary, users could afford to have one, maybe two newspapers delivered, unless money was no object (and those for whom money is no object are on the other side of the economy and don't matter to this side). So they got one and they read that one religiously. And it mattered which one they chose. For a marginal amount, you could get one that was better than all of the others. You could get the news you needed for the money you had, and you weren't living with second-best. So it was a deal. Now that everyone has free access to tens of thousands of news sources, nobody needs a paper. Everyone gets more news than they need, for free. So asking people to pay for it is like asking them to pay for bottled air. Sure you'll find a few suckers, and connoisseurs, and emphysema victims or others who are dependent on your exact product, but the rest will think you're just plain nuts.
And at this point, even if ever professional news organization on the planet went to a paywall system, people would crowd-source their information, and the only way to keep the crowd from supplying it is for the news organizations to pay significantly for information from principal sources in the crowd. But we're a ways off from that sort of global social whoredom.
But if you can't keep doing it, there's no reason to settle. Unless that's part of the settlement.
Google infringed on a few books. The $125M was to make it okay for them to infringe on all books. If they were just going to stop infringing and compensate the people they've already infringed, their offer would be like $1.98.
The lead plaintiffs will be the guild and a few of its members. They'll extend the class to include all of the Guild's members and anyone else who's ever learned to scrape a pencil without breaking the point. Most of the class won't know they're in it until all the litigating is over.
The rest of the members will be mailed a notification of settlement, including instructions on how to get their $0.38 share of the award (the lawyers, of course, will get about $45M off the top).
The notification will include instructions on several ways not to get your $0.38, one of which will be to opt-out, retaining your rights to sue Google as an individual.
Good luck spending $10 million protecting the copyright on a book you can't get anyone to print even for a fee any more.
Oh, and dear Google, did you mispell one or more of the words in "Don't Be Evil"?
Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 1
They've been running that trope for about the last 6 months with over a dozen iterations of 4.0 beta.
Slashdot Mirror
Ought to be a cut-and-paste operation, at worst. The issuer probably does it himself once he knows he's given out bad numbers.
The question is whether blacklisting is really working on a lot of browsers on which cert checking is working.
Firefox released 3.6.16 yesterday:
But did they already release 4.0.1?
The NY Times thinks it's better than Google News.
And my car needs to be washed. If they don't see the career opportunity there, then that's their fault.
You can always afford to stand up to them, by making it more than they can afford to lose to you.
Being a pussy is how tyranny gets its power in the first place.
Expect to double the size of your hard drive?
Male and female brains do differ structurally.
So do gay and straight brains
And if I must be lynched, please do it with this one, immediately and repeatedly.
There's an app to cure people of being Republican: but all it does is tell them the facts.
2. What about all the people who really, truly want to be cured of "gay?"
I was going to post a "damn, now I'll never be cured" post, but decided against it.
IMO anyone who wants to be cured of being gay is either suffering from the delusion that gay is bad, or isn't actually gay and is already cured.
So what they need is a clue app, not a cure app.
"Chilling effect" is something the government does to Free Speech, and is illegal so they can't do it when the courts say they can't. Private organizations can't do it at all without your cooperation. Not even the NY Times. They can ask nice, but fuck 'em if I keep aggregating their shit.
What could some flunkies at Staples do with your tax files that they can't do with the credit card number you gave them?
The only people you don't want knowing about your taxes is the IRS, but they're the ones who ask for them. It's Kafkaesque, is what it is.
Haha. No.
Uniform commercial code, section 2-313B.
What it says in paragraph 3 is, if the seller says it's new, it has to be new. It also says, in paragraph 4, if the seller says it's worth the same as something that's new, it doesn't have to be worth that much. And in paragraph 5 it says that the fine print of their sales pitch may give you no opportunity to recover even if they lied. So watch out for scammy wording. And in paragraph 6 it says it's not their fault if it broke in transit.
IANAL, but I'm probably better than yours.
Oh, and how much of a national freaking treasure is the Cornell University Law School. making of itself by putting this stuff online? I feel like I owe them a chunk of my estate as an endowment when I croak, and I didn't go anywhere near there. If I do decide to go to law school, they're #3 on the list of applications (behind Harvard, of course, and my nearest; Georgetown would be #4, and something online would be #5).
A free copy of Microsoft Bob. With a return sticker on it.
I didn't read TFA so I'm going to make the assumption that the packaging was pristine, including the peel-off plastic protector sheets, so the computer looked "new" until the point it was turned on.
Which leads to the simple conclusion that the computer was in fact a refurb, and the refurbisher did everything on the checklist except re-imaging the drive.
Simple mistake on the refurb's part. Plain fraud by someone who knew it was a refurb and labelled it new.
Depends how the encryption works. If it hides all of the encrypted tree in an encrypted file (e.g. a tarball) then corruption of the encrypted tree is just corruption of a file and not a matter for fsck to deal with. If it encrypts each file separately then fsck should be able to find and relink them to the lost+found the way it does when they're unencrypted.
Unless of course you create a filesystem named candlejack, then you're f
Nothing new.
The government has been preloading infants with debt for decades.
This thing's been on the air so long the first-season episodes should be edited to show them watching the new episodes.
Rip out the search bar?
I practically grew an extra pair of fingers to make ctrl-K less trouble to type.
You do know you can snuggle the search box up next to the address box, right? All the buttons and boxes on one neat bar? And then if you demand it you can make the menu bar and address bar hide.
1. NYT's paywall is a stupid hack that your dog could code around.
2. Back when newspapers were necessary, users could afford to have one, maybe two newspapers delivered, unless money was no object (and those for whom money is no object are on the other side of the economy and don't matter to this side). So they got one and they read that one religiously. And it mattered which one they chose. For a marginal amount, you could get one that was better than all of the others. You could get the news you needed for the money you had, and you weren't living with second-best. So it was a deal. Now that everyone has free access to tens of thousands of news sources, nobody needs a paper. Everyone gets more news than they need, for free. So asking people to pay for it is like asking them to pay for bottled air. Sure you'll find a few suckers, and connoisseurs, and emphysema victims or others who are dependent on your exact product, but the rest will think you're just plain nuts.
And at this point, even if ever professional news organization on the planet went to a paywall system, people would crowd-source their information, and the only way to keep the crowd from supplying it is for the news organizations to pay significantly for information from principal sources in the crowd. But we're a ways off from that sort of global social whoredom.
It doesn't pay to write free software that's any good.
Thanks, Patent Office!
But if you can't keep doing it, there's no reason to settle. Unless that's part of the settlement.
Google infringed on a few books. The $125M was to make it okay for them to infringe on all books. If they were just going to stop infringing and compensate the people they've already infringed, their offer would be like $1.98.
Must be the Mad Cow. It's contagious, you know.
They sue as a class.
The lead plaintiffs will be the guild and a few of its members. They'll extend the class to include all of the Guild's members and anyone else who's ever learned to scrape a pencil without breaking the point. Most of the class won't know they're in it until all the litigating is over.
The rest of the members will be mailed a notification of settlement, including instructions on how to get their $0.38 share of the award (the lawyers, of course, will get about $45M off the top).
The notification will include instructions on several ways not to get your $0.38, one of which will be to opt-out, retaining your rights to sue Google as an individual.
Good luck spending $10 million protecting the copyright on a book you can't get anyone to print even for a fee any more.
Oh, and dear Google, did you mispell one or more of the words in "Don't Be Evil"?
They've been running that trope for about the last 6 months with over a dozen iterations of 4.0 beta.
And it's not been pretty all the way through.