So Recode saw this contract? Why didn't it post the exact language used? Because it sounds plenty fishy for me... what court would enforce a contract that says that if I walk away from a mutually agreed-upon deal, you have to still hold up your end of the deal? You still have to pay even though you get nothing in return? A concept called "consideration" comes to mind...
News agencies are curators of content, while Facebook is a platform. Facebook is to this video what the signal band is to a CNN video.
But this is patently untrue, because if you had ever been on Facebook, you would know that at one time or another pretty much everybody on Facebook has bitched about Facebook messing up their "news feed," prioritizing some posts over others and inserting ads.
Any business owner can decide whom to accept as customers. Maybe I do not millennial generation persons in my privately-run library. I can refuse them entrance and any of them can be ejected at my sole discretion. "No shirt. No Service." Same idea.
Actually, if these millennial generation persons are over the age of 18, then no, in the State of Oregon you are not allowed to discriminate against them solely because of their age.
Or didn't you realize that the gay wedding cake case was decided based on Oregon State law, and that Facebook is not an Oregon company, so this whole discussion thread is pointless?
Ha! I love cases like that. A friend of mine had to go to court once because he was working the front door at a crowded bar and a police officer issued him a ticket (in his name) because the bar was too noisy. In court, my friend defended himself:
Friend: During the incident, do you remember me saying that I was just there to check IDs, that I had no control over the volume of the music, and that you would need to enter the bar and speak to someone else who could address it? Cop: Yes, I remember that. City Attorney: Your honor, we move to dismiss.
Even if that is what they said I am 100% certain that they are lying. And how can I be certain? Because it keeps asking me to send friend requests to two different neighbors that I know by name and by sight but have absolutely no electronic contact with whatsoever.
This. I kept getting invited to "friend" my upstairs neighbor from my old apartment down the street, and the only real contact I ever had with this person was when they came down to tell me to turn the stereo down.
Section 230... which probably should be its own law rather than part of the CDA, but whatever... explicitly shields internet services from liability for illegal actions by their users.
Doesn't sound like AirBnB is being made liable for anything here. It's the users that must pay the registration fee, not the company itself.
In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online.
The idea is that the in-person registration requirement makes it less likely that you'll be a resident-in-absentia, renting out your unit full time. The landlords for my last apartment lived in Los Angeles. If they had to re-register every year, they might not see it as being worth it, compared to just getting a full-time tenant.
Not necessarily. You can be considered a "nuisance neighbor" just for having a bunch of noise complaints or breach-of-the-peace infractions at a particular residence. It wouldn't be unreasonable to make known nuisance neighbors ineligible for AirBnB registration for some period of time.
Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine [wikipedia.org] — no warrant needed.
But that's a good thing. When police are investigating crime in my neighborhood, I want them to be aware that a certain unit is being occupied by transients.
Because it was the government, the information is now public records and/or subject to FOIA-requests by anyone, not just law enforcement.
I'm trying to picture what nightmare scenario you imagine this leading to. On the one hand, all business owners already need to register their address of record with the City. On the other, it's important that officials be aware which units are private residences and which are in effect hotels. Surely the business owner providing this information isn't as "Draconian" as me checking into a European hotel and being asked to leave my passport with the front desk?
Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon but you are wasting tax payer money just to be a dick.
This is the company that tried to fight Proposition F by putting up ads in bus stops claiming San Francisco should essentially thank AirBnB for doing business there, because AirBnB's taxes were helping keep libraries and parks open.* So apparently AirBnB doesn't have to try too hard to be a dick.
* As someone on social media rightly pointed out, if AirBnB loves libraries so much, it could have skipped the $8 million it spent lobbying against the new law and donated $8 million to the library system instead.
I can echo the GP's experience. One doctor I went to wouldn't transfer any records of any kind to another doctor without being paid a fee, which I think was something like $75. Such practices seem self-defeating, to me, but I guess they're common enough.
I'm perfectly happy with my Surface Pro 3 and the Surface Pro 4 seems like a worthy successor, albeit not enough of an upgrade to be worth the price tag for current Surface Pro 3 owners.
The only area where the Surface line has consistently failed is on the low end of the market. When Microsoft cheaps out with low specs (and the resulting poor performance), customers don't bite. There's too much cheap PC hardware to choose from already. If Best Buy is already awash with pieces of shit from Dell, HP, and Toshiba, why would I pay more for a piece of shit from Microsoft?
For the Surface 3, Microsoft was clearly hoping it could succeed on the low end with full Windows 10 instead of the disastrously bad idea that was Windows RT. It looks like it may have proven itself wrong.
Putting Apple fanboism aside, how is it that Microsoft can fail so consistently with so many products yet Apple seems to fail with so few?
Surely you're only talking about hardware products. In which case Microsoft has produced far fewer products than Apple has, while Apple's history is not without its share of failures. Before the Powerbook G3, Apple laptops were often pretty crappy. The entire Performa line sucked. Some of Apple's tower cases were nearly impossible to open without cutting your hands. The 25th Anniversary Mac was a stupid idea. Shit, Apple has had to suck up its share of failures going all the way back to the Apple///. Microsoft put out its first PC in 2012 and you're unwilling to grant it a failure or two here and there?
And if you wanna talk software products, let's talk about the billions and billions that Microsoft makes from software every year. Meanwhile, Apple has managed to sabotage what few software markets it had. Let's ignore Claris, just to be charitable. Let's forget all the projects that never really made it to market, like Copeland. Instead, go ask a former Final Cut user how he's liking Adobe Premiere. I'll wait.
Intel is expected to release Apollo Lake (Cherry Trail's successor) in the 2nd half of 2016.
But if Microsoft was planning to use that chip for a new Surface, it wouldn't EOL the current version now, because it won't be able to get new product into the market until the first half of next year. Companies don't just put brands into temporary retirement for 6-8 months while they wait for their downstream supply chains to catch up.
Because they're making money devaluing yours. It should be plainly obvious that any business model that relies on having desperate people "trade" the equity in their vehicles for less cash than the equity is not much different than loan sharking.
But the figures cited take into account expenses, including depreciation of the vehicle. So it sounds like Uber still pays significantly more than the value of the equity in the vehicle.
That "burden" can be as onerous as having a lawyer write a letter, which it sounds like they had to do anyway. If Comodo went ahead with using their mark after receiving said letter, they would then be in the exact situation they are in now -- only they would have legal standing to enforce their mark, which presently they don't.
"Nonprofit" shouldn't mean you can't afford to pay for basic necessities like registering your business license, paying your fire insurance, and protecting your most basic and fundamental IP (your name).
Oh, all the app stores are swimming in garbage, that's for sure. But I just pulled out my phone and counted and I have no less than 54 apps on there that I've installed post-purchase, and I don't even consider myself a "phone guy."
I have apps for information (The Economist, dictionary, Wikipedia, ereader), travel (airline apps, bus and train schedules, Expedia), banking (including credit cards), movies (Netflix, Fandango), productivity (Microsoft Office suite), two-factor authentication, remote controls for consumer electronics, a couple games, and so on.
I don't think I'm particularly uncommon in that regard. Over time I just accumulated all those apps. I don't use any of them every day, but I use all of them at one time or another.
On Tizen (or Jolla, or BlackBerry) I wouldn't have that "problem."
One problem with all of these "alternative" Linux-based phone OSes, at least so far, has been that they all rely on Android for drivers. Because most of the chipmakers keep their drivers closed and proprietary, not getting a jumpstart from Android would mean the OS can hardly run on anything. The downside is that the alt-OSes are therefore dependent on Android, and not just the open source bits.
There IS a german company selling the product. AND there is a chinese company developing and selling the software in Asia. And it really doesn't matter. If I buy software to host my own files I don't want anyone snooping in.
This issue is about the German company's hosted cloud service, not the product that you can buy and install yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
So Recode saw this contract? Why didn't it post the exact language used? Because it sounds plenty fishy for me ... what court would enforce a contract that says that if I walk away from a mutually agreed-upon deal, you have to still hold up your end of the deal? You still have to pay even though you get nothing in return? A concept called "consideration" comes to mind...
Only thing slightly off about what you're saying ... SWAT was a TV show from 1975.
News agencies are curators of content, while Facebook is a platform. Facebook is to this video what the signal band is to a CNN video.
But this is patently untrue, because if you had ever been on Facebook, you would know that at one time or another pretty much everybody on Facebook has bitched about Facebook messing up their "news feed," prioritizing some posts over others and inserting ads.
Any business owner can decide whom to accept as customers. Maybe I do not millennial generation persons in my privately-run library. I can refuse them entrance and any of them can be ejected at my sole discretion. "No shirt. No Service." Same idea.
Actually, if these millennial generation persons are over the age of 18, then no, in the State of Oregon you are not allowed to discriminate against them solely because of their age.
Or didn't you realize that the gay wedding cake case was decided based on Oregon State law, and that Facebook is not an Oregon company, so this whole discussion thread is pointless?
But does anyone -- seriously, anyone -- claim to like nougat? We're talking about that weird foam that's inside a Three Musketeers bar, here.
As an Amazon customer, this offer makes no sense.
Correct. This offer is not for you.
This offer is to entice new customers to sign up for Prime. In the market for a phone? Sign up for Prime and you can get a discounted phone.
Ha! I love cases like that. A friend of mine had to go to court once because he was working the front door at a crowded bar and a police officer issued him a ticket (in his name) because the bar was too noisy. In court, my friend defended himself:
Friend: During the incident, do you remember me saying that I was just there to check IDs, that I had no control over the volume of the music, and that you would need to enter the bar and speak to someone else who could address it?
Cop: Yes, I remember that.
City Attorney: Your honor, we move to dismiss.
And that was that.
Even if that is what they said I am 100% certain that they are lying. And how can I be certain? Because it keeps asking me to send friend requests to two different neighbors that I know by name and by sight but have absolutely no electronic contact with whatsoever.
This. I kept getting invited to "friend" my upstairs neighbor from my old apartment down the street, and the only real contact I ever had with this person was when they came down to tell me to turn the stereo down.
Section 230... which probably should be its own law rather than part of the CDA, but whatever... explicitly shields internet services from liability for illegal actions by their users.
Doesn't sound like AirBnB is being made liable for anything here. It's the users that must pay the registration fee, not the company itself.
In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online.
The idea is that the in-person registration requirement makes it less likely that you'll be a resident-in-absentia, renting out your unit full time. The landlords for my last apartment lived in Los Angeles. If they had to re-register every year, they might not see it as being worth it, compared to just getting a full-time tenant.
Not necessarily. You can be considered a "nuisance neighbor" just for having a bunch of noise complaints or breach-of-the-peace infractions at a particular residence. It wouldn't be unreasonable to make known nuisance neighbors ineligible for AirBnB registration for some period of time.
What jobs are being destroyed in San Francisco?
Service industry jobs. I'm told it's getting pretty hard to find people willing to commute into the City to work a kitchen three days a week.
Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine [wikipedia.org] — no warrant needed.
But that's a good thing. When police are investigating crime in my neighborhood, I want them to be aware that a certain unit is being occupied by transients.
Because it was the government, the information is now public records and/or subject to FOIA-requests by anyone, not just law enforcement.
I'm trying to picture what nightmare scenario you imagine this leading to. On the one hand, all business owners already need to register their address of record with the City. On the other, it's important that officials be aware which units are private residences and which are in effect hotels. Surely the business owner providing this information isn't as "Draconian" as me checking into a European hotel and being asked to leave my passport with the front desk?
Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon but you are wasting tax payer money just to be a dick.
This is the company that tried to fight Proposition F by putting up ads in bus stops claiming San Francisco should essentially thank AirBnB for doing business there, because AirBnB's taxes were helping keep libraries and parks open.* So apparently AirBnB doesn't have to try too hard to be a dick.
* As someone on social media rightly pointed out, if AirBnB loves libraries so much, it could have skipped the $8 million it spent lobbying against the new law and donated $8 million to the library system instead.
Say that after someone uses your name and SSN to open a property loan under your name (and default on it, naturally).
I can echo the GP's experience. One doctor I went to wouldn't transfer any records of any kind to another doctor without being paid a fee, which I think was something like $75. Such practices seem self-defeating, to me, but I guess they're common enough.
Nice try.
I'm perfectly happy with my Surface Pro 3 and the Surface Pro 4 seems like a worthy successor, albeit not enough of an upgrade to be worth the price tag for current Surface Pro 3 owners.
The only area where the Surface line has consistently failed is on the low end of the market. When Microsoft cheaps out with low specs (and the resulting poor performance), customers don't bite. There's too much cheap PC hardware to choose from already. If Best Buy is already awash with pieces of shit from Dell, HP, and Toshiba, why would I pay more for a piece of shit from Microsoft?
For the Surface 3, Microsoft was clearly hoping it could succeed on the low end with full Windows 10 instead of the disastrously bad idea that was Windows RT. It looks like it may have proven itself wrong.
Putting Apple fanboism aside, how is it that Microsoft can fail so consistently with so many products yet Apple seems to fail with so few?
Surely you're only talking about hardware products. In which case Microsoft has produced far fewer products than Apple has, while Apple's history is not without its share of failures. Before the Powerbook G3, Apple laptops were often pretty crappy. The entire Performa line sucked. Some of Apple's tower cases were nearly impossible to open without cutting your hands. The 25th Anniversary Mac was a stupid idea. Shit, Apple has had to suck up its share of failures going all the way back to the Apple ///. Microsoft put out its first PC in 2012 and you're unwilling to grant it a failure or two here and there?
And if you wanna talk software products, let's talk about the billions and billions that Microsoft makes from software every year. Meanwhile, Apple has managed to sabotage what few software markets it had. Let's ignore Claris, just to be charitable. Let's forget all the projects that never really made it to market, like Copeland. Instead, go ask a former Final Cut user how he's liking Adobe Premiere. I'll wait.
Intel is expected to release Apollo Lake (Cherry Trail's successor) in the 2nd half of 2016.
But if Microsoft was planning to use that chip for a new Surface, it wouldn't EOL the current version now, because it won't be able to get new product into the market until the first half of next year. Companies don't just put brands into temporary retirement for 6-8 months while they wait for their downstream supply chains to catch up.
Voters rightfully want to control their country's own destiny without having to cater to some international rule-making body a thousand miles away.
Luckily, Brussels is only 200 miles away from London.
Because they're making money devaluing yours. It should be plainly obvious that any business model that relies on having desperate people "trade" the equity in their vehicles for less cash than the equity is not much different than loan sharking.
But the figures cited take into account expenses, including depreciation of the vehicle. So it sounds like Uber still pays significantly more than the value of the equity in the vehicle.
That "burden" can be as onerous as having a lawyer write a letter, which it sounds like they had to do anyway. If Comodo went ahead with using their mark after receiving said letter, they would then be in the exact situation they are in now -- only they would have legal standing to enforce their mark, which presently they don't.
"Nonprofit" shouldn't mean you can't afford to pay for basic necessities like registering your business license, paying your fire insurance, and protecting your most basic and fundamental IP (your name).
Oh, all the app stores are swimming in garbage, that's for sure. But I just pulled out my phone and counted and I have no less than 54 apps on there that I've installed post-purchase, and I don't even consider myself a "phone guy."
I have apps for information (The Economist, dictionary, Wikipedia, ereader), travel (airline apps, bus and train schedules, Expedia), banking (including credit cards), movies (Netflix, Fandango), productivity (Microsoft Office suite), two-factor authentication, remote controls for consumer electronics, a couple games, and so on.
I don't think I'm particularly uncommon in that regard. Over time I just accumulated all those apps. I don't use any of them every day, but I use all of them at one time or another.
On Tizen (or Jolla, or BlackBerry) I wouldn't have that "problem."
One problem with all of these "alternative" Linux-based phone OSes, at least so far, has been that they all rely on Android for drivers. Because most of the chipmakers keep their drivers closed and proprietary, not getting a jumpstart from Android would mean the OS can hardly run on anything. The downside is that the alt-OSes are therefore dependent on Android, and not just the open source bits.
There IS a german company selling the product. AND there is a chinese company developing and selling the software in Asia. And it really doesn't matter. If I buy software to host my own files I don't want anyone snooping in.
This issue is about the German company's hosted cloud service, not the product that you can buy and install yourself.