The funny thing about the Mac comment is that it was so true. Modern Macs are better, but I remember in the late 90s when every Mac was supposedly faster than its PC counterpart but in real life took longer to do damn near everything. I actually like the newer Macs but my God why did anyone buy them before about 2004?
It will be an open and shut case all right - in favor of Comcast. This guy has no legal claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the language the judge will use while throwing it out of court. You can't just sue someone because you're pissed off, you have to have some basis in law for the claim. As much as I hate Comcast, there's no law saying they can't filter stuff on their network.
The sooner NASA is gutted and recreated from scratch, the sooner space exploration can progress. NASA is stuck in the 1960s and always will be as long as the money keeps rolling in.
Better yet, how many people think privacy policies actually mean anything? Ever read one? The whole thing contradicts itself in so much legalese. It states that your information won't be given out, and then describes exactly how it will be given out (to anyone who pays for it).
Don't worry, it'll never happen. First, nobody will ever agree on an "industry-wide standard" copyright filter. Even if they do, someone will come along to defeat it before it even goes into production. Third, the companies running it will be sued by patent trolls who hold patents on "a method for content discrimination using the internet". The whole thing is a Viacom pipe-dream.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its subject to a RICO suit. Read the site you linked to. RIAA actions do not in any way qualify under RICO statutes.
If you think Gore would have managed the economy any better after 9/11, I've got a bridge to sell you (or should I say a Miami condo).
For those who actually followed financial news, the recession really began in the summer of 2000. Its effects just became noticeable after 9/11 when companies completely stopped hiring and in many cases began massive layoffs. For the tech industry, 2002 was a great depression.
Alternative energy bubbles have come and gone over the years, and will never be enough to save the entire national economy.
Is going up to the biggest dude in a biker bar and calling him a pussy justification for him pounding you into the floor? No of course not, but not too many people would be surprised when it happens. But if you want to do it in order to stand up for your rights, knock yourself out (or in this case let the biker dude knock you out).
The store has EVERY right to ban the asshole from setting foot on their property again, even if its just for not showing a receipt. Its called private property, you fucking moron. Take your anti-authoritarian anarchist bent and shove it up your ass.
If you invent something, your only way of capitalizing on it would be to make and sell the devices yourself if you are not allowed to sell to anyone else. And what's to stop a patent troll from filing their own dubious patents? This would only screw legitimate inventors and do very little to stop patent trolling. A company with a lot of patents could not change ownership without losing them all.
When did the guy offer to leave quietly? Lets see, it was after he flailed his arms at the officers and blatantly resisted, and before he started resisting again on the ground. He had no intention of leaving peacefully. Quite the opposite, he was acting for the cameras to get maximum effect for TV. The asshat got what was coming to him.
Why would Kerry want to go help someone who was intent on disrupting and hijacking the forum? I know the kid has free speech rights, but so does everyone else who attended that forum. Why should one person be able to dominate the discussion, and without regard to the moderator's requests to yield the floor?
Yes it is, although I'd say SCO will have a hard time with this. Obtaining financing to sustain operations through bankruptcy is generally required and I suspect this will be exceptionally hard for SCO. Who would finance them considering that Novell and IBM pretty much own them now? Any remaining assets will be claimed by creditors one way or another.
Given the tightened credit markets and the small likelihood of profitable operations even after bankruptcy, this Chapter 11 will soon turn to a Chapter 13 (liquidation).
I'll feel morally obligated to stop a casino's losses when they feel morally obligated to stop mine. Seeing as that will never happen, I have nothing to worry about as far as gambling morals are concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that or someone is just trying to keep their mental masturbation (research) grants rolling in.
Remember when oil production "peaked" in the 1970's? How many times will we have "peak oil"?
The funny thing about the Mac comment is that it was so true. Modern Macs are better, but I remember in the late 90s when every Mac was supposedly faster than its PC counterpart but in real life took longer to do damn near everything. I actually like the newer Macs but my God why did anyone buy them before about 2004?
It will be an open and shut case all right - in favor of Comcast. This guy has no legal claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the language the judge will use while throwing it out of court. You can't just sue someone because you're pissed off, you have to have some basis in law for the claim. As much as I hate Comcast, there's no law saying they can't filter stuff on their network.
The sooner NASA is gutted and recreated from scratch, the sooner space exploration can progress. NASA is stuck in the 1960s and always will be as long as the money keeps rolling in.
Better yet, how many people think privacy policies actually mean anything? Ever read one? The whole thing contradicts itself in so much legalese. It states that your information won't be given out, and then describes exactly how it will be given out (to anyone who pays for it).
NYC parking tickets are only $45? Shit, it costs more than that to park legally!
Don't worry, it'll never happen. First, nobody will ever agree on an "industry-wide standard" copyright filter. Even if they do, someone will come along to defeat it before it even goes into production. Third, the companies running it will be sued by patent trolls who hold patents on "a method for content discrimination using the internet". The whole thing is a Viacom pipe-dream.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its subject to a RICO suit. Read the site you linked to. RIAA actions do not in any way qualify under RICO statutes.
ARMS are almost always a bad idea when fixed rates are at 5.5% as they were in 2003. Since they have nowhere to go but up, why would you want an ARM?
If you think Gore would have managed the economy any better after 9/11, I've got a bridge to sell you (or should I say a Miami condo).
For those who actually followed financial news, the recession really began in the summer of 2000. Its effects just became noticeable after 9/11 when companies completely stopped hiring and in many cases began massive layoffs. For the tech industry, 2002 was a great depression.
Alternative energy bubbles have come and gone over the years, and will never be enough to save the entire national economy.
Is going up to the biggest dude in a biker bar and calling him a pussy justification for him pounding you into the floor? No of course not, but not too many people would be surprised when it happens. But if you want to do it in order to stand up for your rights, knock yourself out (or in this case let the biker dude knock you out).
The store has EVERY right to ban the asshole from setting foot on their property again, even if its just for not showing a receipt. Its called private property, you fucking moron. Take your anti-authoritarian anarchist bent and shove it up your ass.
If you invent something, your only way of capitalizing on it would be to make and sell the devices yourself if you are not allowed to sell to anyone else. And what's to stop a patent troll from filing their own dubious patents? This would only screw legitimate inventors and do very little to stop patent trolling. A company with a lot of patents could not change ownership without losing them all.
When did the guy offer to leave quietly? Lets see, it was after he flailed his arms at the officers and blatantly resisted, and before he started resisting again on the ground. He had no intention of leaving peacefully. Quite the opposite, he was acting for the cameras to get maximum effect for TV. The asshat got what was coming to him.
Why would Kerry want to go help someone who was intent on disrupting and hijacking the forum? I know the kid has free speech rights, but so does everyone else who attended that forum. Why should one person be able to dominate the discussion, and without regard to the moderator's requests to yield the floor?
Yes it is, although I'd say SCO will have a hard time with this. Obtaining financing to sustain operations through bankruptcy is generally required and I suspect this will be exceptionally hard for SCO. Who would finance them considering that Novell and IBM pretty much own them now? Any remaining assets will be claimed by creditors one way or another.
Given the tightened credit markets and the small likelihood of profitable operations even after bankruptcy, this Chapter 11 will soon turn to a Chapter 13 (liquidation).
Especially if their ticker changes back to SCOXE. It rhymes with a well known horror-show website that describes what will happen to Darl soon.
Anyone who thinks publicly owned monopolies are not a bad thing has never been subjected to public transportation in Chicago.
Cell phone companies and airlines certainly don't care if their customers hate them.
Please tell me you're lying. We have used this great product for a long time, and I'd really hate to see Symantec run it into the ground.
He's going to do what Symantec does with every product they've ever bought: cash cow it!
Claiming that something is illegal does not necessarily make it so.
Sure you can, its called a plea bargain. It does require the judge to approve, but it avoids trial, which is basically the purpose of a settlement.
I'll feel morally obligated to stop a casino's losses when they feel morally obligated to stop mine. Seeing as that will never happen, I have nothing to worry about as far as gambling morals are concerned.