Surely they have the original digital transfer that they used for the DVD Special edition ? You know make the transfer, edit in the new stuff, profit ! Only a crazy person would have deleted the unedited version.
(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.
and :
(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --
(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.
That prohibits them from telling your employer and indeed calling you at work if your employer doesn't like it.
Here's a fun one... Federal law prohibits people you owe money to from calling your employer and telling them. Yet your employer can pull your credit report and see all of that information. Something needs to be fixed here.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade comitted the USA to allow free trade in gambling services with other signatory states. The USA did ask for an exception to this provision of the treaty and ratified it in full.
The constitution makes it very plain that International Treaties ratified by the congress shall be considered law in the United States.
That may be the crux of the jusice departments argument... but it remains to be tested in court... most lawyers I've talked to about this are convinced that the case cannot succeed.
But thats the point... google, yahoo etc have to comply with the laws because they have offices employees etc in that country otherwise nothing could be done to them. It's a fairly basic principal that you don't submit to the laws of a country without having one of a) citizenship b) physical presence.
Becuase the NY Times offers a print edition in the UK and no doubt has offices there they would likely be subject to the laws in Britain at least in as far as that edition of the paper goes.
Bet they won't do it. I can't even get qwest (a sprint reseller) to activate a sprint labelled phone. Their computer systems knows which ESNs were sold to which telco and won't activate one that came from another (even if its really the same) network.
Your camera is the problem... when you connect a device to usb is exchanges some data with the host computer, one of those being the power requirements of the device. The OS should not allow a device to connect that request more power than is available.
The hub in the apple keyboard (mine anyway) is a usb 1.1 hub. The ipod asks for more power than the keyboard hub can provide so the OS won't allow it to connect.
I once knew somebody who quit their job because windows kept telling them they'd performed an illegal instruction. Apparently they thought the computer was reporting them to the cops or something.
Thats the biggest problem, every piece was designed with the space shuttle in mind - to reconfigure it to fly on another rocket even if one was available would probably mean redesigning a lot of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely they have the original digital transfer that they used for the DVD Special edition ? You know make the transfer, edit in the new stuff, profit ! Only a crazy person would have deleted the unedited version.
By the way I'm not a lawyer - I don't even play one on TV
Specifically :
(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.
and :
(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --
(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.
That prohibits them from telling your employer and indeed calling you at work if your employer doesn't like it.
Fair debt collection practices act
Here's a fun one ... Federal law prohibits people you owe money to from calling your employer and telling them. Yet your employer can pull your credit report and see all of that information. Something needs to be fixed here.
Can you cite a case where this actually happened ? I've tried the likes of snopes.com and haven't come up with anything yet.
Ok - I meant See I thought the sole purpose of government *is* to Entertain and Amaze us. If not why do we have the one we have ?
Don't confuse grammer with typing errors.
See I thought the sole purpose of Entertain and Amaze us. If not why do we have the one we have ?
-10 Timing.
Typo ... I should have said that "The USA did not ask for an exception to this provision"
Actually the wire act is itself illegal.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade comitted the USA to allow free trade in gambling services with other signatory states. The USA did ask for an exception to this provision of the treaty and ratified it in full.
The constitution makes it very plain that International Treaties ratified by the congress shall be considered law in the United States.
That may be the crux of the jusice departments argument ... but it remains to be tested in court ... most lawyers I've talked to about this are convinced that the case cannot succeed.
But thats the point ... google, yahoo etc have to comply with the laws because they have offices employees etc in that country otherwise nothing could be done to them. It's a fairly basic principal that you don't submit to the laws of a country without having one of a) citizenship b) physical presence.
Hell, I haven't had XP or 2000 crash in years.
Then you're not using it.
What you say in court is protected ... you can't be sued for it.
Becuase the NY Times offers a print edition in the UK and no doubt has offices there they would likely be subject to the laws in Britain at least in as far as that edition of the paper goes.
Bet they won't do it. I can't even get qwest (a sprint reseller) to activate a sprint labelled phone. Their computer systems knows which ESNs were sold to which telco and won't activate one that came from another (even if its really the same) network.
Your camera is the problem ... when you connect a device to usb is exchanges some data with the host computer, one of those being the power requirements of the device. The OS should not allow a device to connect that request more power than is available.
The hub in the apple keyboard (mine anyway) is a usb 1.1 hub. The ipod asks for more power than the keyboard hub can provide so the OS won't allow it to connect.
I once knew somebody who quit their job because windows kept telling them they'd performed an illegal instruction. Apparently they thought the computer was reporting them to the cops or something.
Yes I was amazed the market for treasury bonds didn't crash over night when the president called them "Just IOUs"
Add to this the people selling "instructions" on how to get a free whatever it is you searched for.
Most traffic tickets are for civil infractions and not crimes unless you do it with malicious intent.
It would be really inefficient if search engines broadcast all requests accross the entire internet.
Thats the biggest problem, every piece was designed with the space shuttle in mind - to reconfigure it to fly on another rocket even if one was available would probably mean redesigning a lot of it.