If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.
You might want to seek legal advice before attempting this. Get a photo of the lawyer's face on hearing your plan.
But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)
Prosecution is pretty rare. Still, if you have a person acting on your behalf, claiming you can act in bad faith is like saying you can get away with burglary if you manage to convince some else to break in to a house under the pretence that it's your house and you forgot your keys. Again, suggest this to the lawyer and check their facial expressions. The consultation will cost money, but the resulting photos could form a new meme!
I'd certainly find it difficult to imagine Kleargear would see an upsurge in orders. Google results for Kleargear are overwhelmingly negative, and they're swiftly picking up poor reviews in WOT and similar site ranking tools.
The 48 business hour delay is odd. In addition to this, their order status site is down.
It's a "knowledge base" containing 0 articles. Just try searching for anything - you'll never find a single result. After a pointless search, the user is then directed to submit a question.
Kleargear appears to be circling the drain, or is some cowboy operation (as evidenced by their fondness of "certified/approved by x" banners. Either way, I wouldn't be expecting to receive goods paid for.
I would imagine that most people would take a job and a roof over their heads, and a higher crime rate, than a low crime rate and to be living on the streets or jobless. So I would imagine that many would take the training and "leg up" for themselves over convicted criminals any day, even if it meant a riskier street.
And why are these things mutually exclusive. As noted by others, the United States spends a lot of money incarcerating people. Spending money to reduce recidivism doesn't necessarily mean spending more overall. Even having an additional tax payer who isn't out nicking stuff is better than spending a few grand a week to keep them locked-up.
No argument from me - people should be rewarded based on effort. I don't see that providing adequate resources to rehabilitation and appropriate welfare would be mutually exclusive.
Sure, law abiding people deserve better. They deserve education, healthcare, housing and food. The fact that prisons provide these free of charge to prisoners is irrelevant.
They also deserve lower crime rates, and hopefully schemes of this kind will mean these offenders are less likely to re-offend. It's going to depend on the numbers. It's an unfortunate reality that justice isn't necessarily fair for people who do the right thing.
Console games are fun to play because you sit on the couch in your living room. computer games you play at a desk, facing a wall. i spend all day at work facing a wall. why would I want to do it again at home?
Apple could buy Intel, at least in theory. They have cash reserves of $147 Billion - Intel's market cap is only $118 Billion.
That's exactly how it works.
Scene 1: The stockbroker's office
Tim Cook enters the office of his stockbroker, carrying a briefcase and looking determined.
Cook: Good morrow, old chap. Stockbroker: Ah, Mr. Cook. Do please take a seat and explain how I may be of service? Cook: I'd like to buy Intel shares. Stockbroker: Excellent choice, sir. What quantity did you have in mind? Cook: All of them Stockbroker: Right away, Mr. Cook. Cash or credit?
Cook opens a suitcase to reveal $118 billion in billion dollar notes.
Cook: Cash, of course. Jeeves, ready my stealth jet. Jeeves: Very good, sir. Where to? Cook: Santa Clara. Jeeves: Yes, sir.
Scene 2: The Intel boardroom
Tim Cook strides in to the boardroom, smoking a cigar and eyeing the decor.
Krzanich: Cook, you can't come barging in here! Cook: I think not, old friend. For I just bought Intel! Krzanich: How? Cook: I read an informative post on Slashdot in which it was explained how it was as easy as having money equal to the market cap. I'll need to ask you to leave. Krzanich: Damn it! I didn't think anyone knew this! Jeeves: Shall I begin construction of your Tony Stark-like secret labs under the building, where you may commence work on powered armour or something similar, sir? Cook: Yes, Jeeves. That would be awesome - Awesome to the max!
The only good thing about JC was he open sourced his game engines but other then that he hasn't done much to help other games besides his own get open sourced.
So he's done something good, but didn't do what you somehow think he should have done. That's more a criticism of you than of Cormack.
Given past behaviour it seems a pretty objective fear. Same would apply to any project, proprietary or open source, that doesn't offer migration paths for data.
How do you figure? Each ticket has the same chance of winning, the more you buy the more likely you are to win. But the odds are such that the expected return over the long run is less than what you would pay in.
That's why smart gamblers buy multiple tickets. Buy two tickets - double your chances? Buy ten tickets and you're ten times more likely to win! How could you lose?
I get the feeling you're going to head down that familiar root pointing out that x is really just a refined version of y - where y is some technology that originated 30 years ago. Barring that, I can only assume you've been living with the Amish. Either way, it'll be just as productive if I pretend to be playing Pong.
However, everyone seems to forget that SnapChat is in touch with almost 99% of all youth and a very large percentage of all smartphone users.
A "customer base" MUCH larger than anything PrimeSense will EVER dream of touching.
Heinz has a user base much larger than Intel's. A comparison between Heinz and Intel seems just as disjointed and useless as comparing SnapChat's user base (online service for consumers) with PrimeSense (licensing tech and selling niche hardware to geeks).
"Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me more?" USSSSLiers on the loose. Now what? Anonymous have MD weapons in their keyboards? They are hacked by themself, nobody believes them but them.
Slashdot Mirror
If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.
You might want to seek legal advice before attempting this. Get a photo of the lawyer's face on hearing your plan.
But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)
Prosecution is pretty rare. Still, if you have a person acting on your behalf, claiming you can act in bad faith is like saying you can get away with burglary if you manage to convince some else to break in to a house under the pretence that it's your house and you forgot your keys. Again, suggest this to the lawyer and check their facial expressions. The consultation will cost money, but the resulting photos could form a new meme!
I'd certainly find it difficult to imagine Kleargear would see an upsurge in orders. Google results for Kleargear are overwhelmingly negative, and they're swiftly picking up poor reviews in WOT and similar site ranking tools.
The 48 business hour delay is odd. In addition to this, their order status site is down.
http://www.kleargear.com/orderstatus.html
The order status page is now directing customers to their "Kleargear Customer Care Centre" which is this:
https://kleargear.zendesk.com/home
It's a "knowledge base" containing 0 articles. Just try searching for anything - you'll never find a single result. After a pointless search, the user is then directed to submit a question.
Kleargear appears to be circling the drain, or is some cowboy operation (as evidenced by their fondness of "certified/approved by x" banners. Either way, I wouldn't be expecting to receive goods paid for.
More and more of electronic pollution? Mire wifi usage, more cellphones + more upper gigahertz traffic (G2, G3, G4)?
Imbalanced chakras? Cold and squared audio output from transistor amps? The decline of the department store?
It's also a lot less expensive than a MBP
It certainly looks it.
That's Ray Comfort logic: Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lied? You are a thieving liar.
That exclamation censorship thing is pretty strange.
The main difference are that when private enterprise raises money, the investment is voluntary, and when a private enterprise fails, they go away.
Life is harsh in the private sector. A moment of silence, please, for the following companies that failed and are presumably no longer in business:
General Motors
AIG
Bank of America
Citigroup
JPMorgan Chase
Wells Fargo
Chrysler
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
PNC Financial Services
I would imagine that most people would take a job and a roof over their heads, and a higher crime rate, than a low crime rate and to be living on the streets or jobless. So I would imagine that many would take the training and "leg up" for themselves over convicted criminals any day, even if it meant a riskier street.
And why are these things mutually exclusive. As noted by others, the United States spends a lot of money incarcerating people. Spending money to reduce recidivism doesn't necessarily mean spending more overall. Even having an additional tax payer who isn't out nicking stuff is better than spending a few grand a week to keep them locked-up.
No argument from me - people should be rewarded based on effort. I don't see that providing adequate resources to rehabilitation and appropriate welfare would be mutually exclusive.
Sure, law abiding people deserve better. They deserve education, healthcare, housing and food. The fact that prisons provide these free of charge to prisoners is irrelevant.
They also deserve lower crime rates, and hopefully schemes of this kind will mean these offenders are less likely to re-offend. It's going to depend on the numbers. It's an unfortunate reality that justice isn't necessarily fair for people who do the right thing.
Console games are fun to play because you sit on the couch in your living room. computer games you play at a desk, facing a wall. i spend all day at work facing a wall. why would I want to do it again at home?
You have no wall behind your TV?
Apple could buy Intel, at least in theory. They have cash reserves of $147 Billion - Intel's market cap is only $118 Billion.
That's exactly how it works.
Scene 1: The stockbroker's office
Tim Cook enters the office of his stockbroker, carrying a briefcase and looking determined.
Cook: Good morrow, old chap.
Stockbroker: Ah, Mr. Cook. Do please take a seat and explain how I may be of service?
Cook: I'd like to buy Intel shares.
Stockbroker: Excellent choice, sir. What quantity did you have in mind?
Cook: All of them
Stockbroker: Right away, Mr. Cook. Cash or credit?
Cook opens a suitcase to reveal $118 billion in billion dollar notes.
Cook: Cash, of course. Jeeves, ready my stealth jet.
Jeeves: Very good, sir. Where to?
Cook: Santa Clara.
Jeeves: Yes, sir.
Scene 2: The Intel boardroom
Tim Cook strides in to the boardroom, smoking a cigar and eyeing the decor.
Krzanich: Cook, you can't come barging in here!
Cook: I think not, old friend. For I just bought Intel!
Krzanich: How?
Cook: I read an informative post on Slashdot in which it was explained how it was as easy as having money equal to the market cap. I'll need to ask you to leave.
Krzanich: Damn it! I didn't think anyone knew this!
Jeeves: Shall I begin construction of your Tony Stark-like secret labs under the building, where you may commence work on powered armour or something similar, sir?
Cook: Yes, Jeeves. That would be awesome - Awesome to the max!
The only good thing about JC was he open sourced his game engines but other then that he hasn't done much to help other games besides his own get open sourced.
So he's done something good, but didn't do what you somehow think he should have done. That's more a criticism of you than of Cormack.
Where does 5000% come from? I can see in the linked figures how 50% figures in.
Opening an account requires a bit more than that:
http://www.barclays.co.uk/CurrentAccounts/Identificationdocumentsrequired/P1242557966027
I know as well that Natwest asked for my passport when I wanted to change my contact details.
Given past behaviour it seems a pretty objective fear. Same would apply to any project, proprietary or open source, that doesn't offer migration paths for data.
How do you figure? Each ticket has the same chance of winning, the more you buy the more likely you are to win. But the odds are such that the expected return over the long run is less than what you would pay in.
That's why smart gamblers buy multiple tickets. Buy two tickets - double your chances? Buy ten tickets and you're ten times more likely to win! How could you lose?
I get the feeling you're going to head down that familiar root pointing out that x is really just a refined version of y - where y is some technology that originated 30 years ago. Barring that, I can only assume you've been living with the Amish. Either way, it'll be just as productive if I pretend to be playing Pong.
Shush. Pong.
I like your style, sir!
However, everyone seems to forget that SnapChat is in touch with almost 99% of all youth and a very large percentage of all smartphone users.
A "customer base" MUCH larger than anything PrimeSense will EVER dream of touching.
Heinz has a user base much larger than Intel's. A comparison between Heinz and Intel seems just as disjointed and useless as comparing SnapChat's user base (online service for consumers) with PrimeSense (licensing tech and selling niche hardware to geeks).
Yeah. I wish some other stuff had happened in the past 30 years. Anyway, can't talk. Going to go play some Pong.
Those 70s wankers? The microprocessor 'aint nothing more than a shrinked down bunch of people with calculators.
Calculators? They 'aint nothing more than a jumped up abacus.
Leave it in an unlocked car in Lewisham. It'll be gone in an hour.
But I like the advertisment, your PR team is awesome to have submitted this to slashdot!
Yeah. It's a very exclusive and highly selective process to get a story on Slashdot.
Hopefully from here on we'll be seeing a story for every single iOS/Android app release.
"Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me more?"
USSSSLiers on the loose.
Now what? Anonymous have MD weapons in their keyboards?
They are hacked by themself, nobody believes them but them.
Bahh, Bollocks!
Is this a modern take on The Jabberwocky?