WTF?/. can handle virgulilla, but not (typographically) proper quotes?
(I know, if someone has command of HTLM characters much is possible here, but there's still a general WTF, because it all should be easier than it is.)
"Yelp was not a party to the lawsuit, so it's patently unfair to bind them to the judgment between two totally other parties."
Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.
"So you have an entire cottage industry of reputation-management companies filing real lawsuits against fake defendants in order to either request or demand takedown."
That has its own remedy. Courts don't look lightly on perjury or abuse of process.
The device also contains an RFID and GPS chip that allow me to see where my car is at any given moment, to voluntarily track my trips, and to even optionally display DMV-approved customized messages in a small font below the plate number itself.
$700 and $7/mo because you can't remember where you parked, plus a bumper sticker? The answer is no for anyone who's not an idiot. And if you (the summary writer) feel the need to even ask the question, you're one of those idiots.
Defamation can come with damages. Yelp wasn't a defendant because they (correctly) weren't accused of that, and weren't exposed to damages - they were strictly a third party and the only thing asked of them was that they remove the offending content. Why shouldn't they be subject to a default judgment which only has very minimal impact on them? Judgments often demand that someone's wages be garnished, the employer isn't a party to the case, yet they have to bear a small burden to fulfill the judgment. How is this any different?
To summarize: someone says bad things about someone else. They sue for defamation, claiming untruth. The suit goes undefended, so the court orders the defamation removed.
That wouldn't, in any way, "lead to the removal of negative reviews from the popular website," as Yelp claims (at least not truthful, subjective opinions).
Same with "Yelp said the removal order violated a 1996 federal law that courts have widely interpreted as protecting internet companies from liability for posts by third-party users and prohibiting the companies from being treated as the speaker or publisher of usersâ(TM) posts." No one claimed Yelp was liable, they were simply told to remove the offending item. That doesn't "interfere with and undermine the viability of" Yelp. Someone who wants a legitimately libelous posting removed still needs to go through the courts.
Yea, "users with an unlimited plan will see their hotspot speeds capped at 600 Kbps." So, IOW, it is not unlimited, there being a very strict and specific limit.
"by way of a plane carrying 15 to 20 bags of packages from Amazon the convenience of the digital age arrives, by way of a plane carrying 15 to 20 bags of packages from Amazon"
And, the Himalayan valleys produce really good echos (another Amazon reference).
"$50K. That makes it a luxury car, not a car for the people."
That depends on operational and maintenance costs, as well as longevity. That is, unless you consider anything other than a cheap upfront cost shitbox with a short lifetime which provides job security for the dealer mechanic to be the definition of less-than-luxury.
I'm not claiming which side of the scale Teslas fall on, just pointing out that the economics are much more than initial cost.
"If you read the article the waiters were complaining because their managers decided to cut their hours because they were getting consistently bad ratings."
Yep. Ratings are relative. For those complaining their hours were cut due to poor ratings, there are others (unheard from here) who saw an increase in hours because they had better ratings.
Win-win. Customers get better service, waitstaff gets rewarded based on the quality of their work.
Ah, the major failure of US "checks and balances" is the feds being the ultimate arbiter of what the feds can do. There really needs to be a tribunal of the states which is the ultimate judicial authority over the feds.
The whole system is upside down - the most power should be at the local level, where individual votes can have the most effect (and people can react by simply moving, if they want); and with minimal power at the federal level.
No. Just because Superman doesn't have Magneto's power to control magnetism, doesn't mean his powers are limited. A limitation is assertive - "you may not do this". The constitutional debates made that clear - one side arguing that the Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary, since the feds didn't have power to do any of the things which it specifically denied. The other side said, they'll take whatever power they can unless you say otherwise. And even though that's specifically spelled out in the 10th, they still do things they don't have constitutional power to do.
For instance, the feds have no power to fund healthcare, or the arts, or scientific research, or to own national parks or forests, or even to delegate Congress's lawmaking powers to an unelected regulatory bureaucracy in the Executive branch. But they do.
The constitution doesn't limit federal power, it grants only specific powers to the feds. Of course, they ignore that (10th amendment) and do whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? /. can handle virgulilla, but not (typographically) proper quotes?
(I know, if someone has command of HTLM characters much is possible here, but there's still a general WTF, because it all should be easier than it is.)
Thanks for the humor. I look forward to the time you have something serious to say.
"By contrast, forcing Yelp to remove content implicates their First Amendment rights to expressive speech."
Are you stupid, or trolling? The content was written by the user (who is therefore the copyright owner), and libel is not protected speech.
Some bumper stickers are useful. I had one saying "Authorized Vehicle." It let me make U-turns on the highway.
"Yelp was not a party to the lawsuit, so it's patently unfair to bind them to the judgment between two totally other parties."
Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.
"So you have an entire cottage industry of reputation-management companies filing real lawsuits against fake defendants in order to either request or demand takedown."
That has its own remedy. Courts don't look lightly on perjury or abuse of process.
"Why would anyone do this?"
Might as well ask why anyone would sign up for the Bookface. To be part of the in-crowd and prove you're on the clueless edge of technology!
Yup.
$700 and $7/mo because you can't remember where you parked, plus a bumper sticker? The answer is no for anyone who's not an idiot. And if you (the summary writer) feel the need to even ask the question, you're one of those idiots.
P. T. Barnum was right.
Defamation can come with damages. Yelp wasn't a defendant because they (correctly) weren't accused of that, and weren't exposed to damages - they were strictly a third party and the only thing asked of them was that they remove the offending content. Why shouldn't they be subject to a default judgment which only has very minimal impact on them? Judgments often demand that someone's wages be garnished, the employer isn't a party to the case, yet they have to bear a small burden to fulfill the judgment. How is this any different?
To summarize: someone says bad things about someone else. They sue for defamation, claiming untruth. The suit goes undefended, so the court orders the defamation removed.
That wouldn't, in any way, "lead to the removal of negative reviews from the popular website," as Yelp claims (at least not truthful, subjective opinions).
Same with "Yelp said the removal order violated a 1996 federal law that courts have widely interpreted as protecting internet companies from liability for posts by third-party users and prohibiting the companies from being treated as the speaker or publisher of usersâ(TM) posts." No one claimed Yelp was liable, they were simply told to remove the offending item. That doesn't "interfere with and undermine the viability of" Yelp. Someone who wants a legitimately libelous posting removed still needs to go through the courts.
Yea, "users with an unlimited plan will see their hotspot speeds capped at 600 Kbps." So, IOW, it is not unlimited, there being a very strict and specific limit.
"by way of a plane carrying 15 to 20 bags of packages from Amazon the convenience of the digital age arrives, by way of a plane carrying 15 to 20 bags of packages from Amazon"
And, the Himalayan valleys produce really good echos (another Amazon reference).
Just hope you don't get a short in your shorts.
I'm sorry you can't afford a dictionary, because if you could, you'd know that luxury isn't related to cost.
Ah, so your definition of a luxury vehicle is a new one. OK, but luxury doesn't mean what you think it means.
"Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has managed to get Tinder to encrypt..."
No, he didn't. Tinder's letter said they started encrypting on Feb 6. Wyden's letter asking they encrypt was dated Feb 14.
"$50K. That makes it a luxury car, not a car for the people."
That depends on operational and maintenance costs, as well as longevity. That is, unless you consider anything other than a cheap upfront cost shitbox with a short lifetime which provides job security for the dealer mechanic to be the definition of less-than-luxury.
I'm not claiming which side of the scale Teslas fall on, just pointing out that the economics are much more than initial cost.
msmash stated no such thing. They quoted someone who did, and who also qualified it by saying "Nearly an hour into..."
You're the idiot who should work on their reading skills before commenting.
"If you read the article the waiters were complaining because their managers decided to cut their hours because they were getting consistently bad ratings."
Yep. Ratings are relative. For those complaining their hours were cut due to poor ratings, there are others (unheard from here) who saw an increase in hours because they had better ratings.
Win-win. Customers get better service, waitstaff gets rewarded based on the quality of their work.
"Also note that the Supreme Court..."
Ah, the major failure of US "checks and balances" is the feds being the ultimate arbiter of what the feds can do. There really needs to be a tribunal of the states which is the ultimate judicial authority over the feds.
The whole system is upside down - the most power should be at the local level, where individual votes can have the most effect (and people can react by simply moving, if they want); and with minimal power at the federal level.
Yeah, Apple seems to be getting more and more user hostile for the sake of "style." (or maybe "courage"?)
"Including a wireless charger with new iPhones would also significantly raise the price of the phones."
And not including one would still raise the price, since people would still have to buy a charger.
No. Just because Superman doesn't have Magneto's power to control magnetism, doesn't mean his powers are limited. A limitation is assertive - "you may not do this". The constitutional debates made that clear - one side arguing that the Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary, since the feds didn't have power to do any of the things which it specifically denied. The other side said, they'll take whatever power they can unless you say otherwise. And even though that's specifically spelled out in the 10th, they still do things they don't have constitutional power to do.
For instance, the feds have no power to fund healthcare, or the arts, or scientific research, or to own national parks or forests, or even to delegate Congress's lawmaking powers to an unelected regulatory bureaucracy in the Executive branch. But they do.
The constitution doesn't limit federal power, it grants only specific powers to the feds. Of course, they ignore that (10th amendment) and do whatever they want.
"You'll, of course, make it illegal to use this money for anything else, right?"
What difference would that make? It's a zero-sum game. They'd just reduce education expenditures from the general fund to offset.
"...she said in an emailed statement."
She? Who? Unreferenced pronoun error.
And, they all sing Kumbaya around the campfire on breaks.