Editors, would you exercise some kind of fucking diligence here?
Ripoffreport is a random soundboard for anything. For example: a search for the word "meth":
Jenny muniz Jenevieve muniz Crystal meth addict. thief. con. burnt down her mothers house. las vegas Nevada
Apple Unlimited owned by Dave Apple Manipulative crystal meth addict sexually harasses employees and takes advantage of employees...and gets away with it Virginia Beach Virginia
FRANKIE LEE DEAVER DEAVER, FRANKIE LEE SCAM ARTIST !!! METH HEAD !!!! ADDICT !!!! CHRONIC JAILBIRD !!!! ANDERSON Missouri
Follow the link to kutv. It mentions Ripoffreport asking a 2000 dollar fee to remove her feedback? An important point missing from the summary. Is this true? If so, why is this mentioned but not mentioned in Techdirt's article or otherwise followed up?
Isn't there a legitimate mechanism to be used when Kleargear, a company that tries too hard to be geeky, is alleged to lie to credit agencies? Kleargear seems to be a bit iffy. They plaster their site in "verified by x" badges. Buysafe? What the fuck is that? I don't know, but for some reason I'm reassured that this hitherto unknown company guarantees this site is inspected and monitored. They have a TRUSTe seal! Wow, they've promised to abide by security policies that'll most likely never be inspected. TRUSTe means fuck all positive. Oh, but wait. They carry a badge from inc.com! Meh, it's the LinkedIn of companies. I'm a professor at MIT, and I have a 14" dick. If you believe that then TRUSTe probably means something to you.
tl;dr: Kleargear is at best a company that protests far too much. Ripoffreport is as good a source of information as YouTube comments. Slashdot editors don't bother following any links,and Slashdot is somewhere between The Weekly World News and Heat magazine.
1) Unjustified self-importance: applications that, even when not running, insist on having daemons running for updates or whatever else. If it's not core to the utility if the application then just fuck off.
2) Freebies that keep begging me to buy stuff. I'll either buy this or I'll take something for free. If the latter then don't be disingenuous.
3) stuff I paid for that gives me adverts. I paid for this, so fuck off when you either decide to use DLC or adverts to repeatedly well me shit that interferes with my user experience.
Yeah, removing the second jobs and one off fees would make sense. British MPs are not under-paid by any stretch of the imagination. It seems the average is £66,396 ($106,812), which is comfortably above the median salary for the UK. They also have a raft of expenses they can pull.
Anyone wanting to get rich by sitting on numerous boards and committees should be actively discouraged from seeking office. I'd rather see people in this to do the job, and with the salary as it stands I don't see issues in finding suitably qualified candidates. I'd understand as well that the government may well employ advisors on higher salaries, due to a need for specific expertise, but MPs do not require high expertise in any discipline that should be commanding salaries higher than the ones they already have. Obviously salary would vary based on their position - such as the Home Secretary probably pulling in more than a vanilla MP.
Witless they may be, so it's maybe by chance they correctly modded you down.
Alice: Germany, what about those salamis they make?
You: It's good but the Italians really need to make better mustard
Alice: What?
You: Exactly!
That's you in a nutshell
It could be interesting as well to outline things that shouldn't happen. E.g. The ability to suspend websites under the Stop Happiness In Terrorism Act will not be employed to take down a torrent website with no proven connection to terrorists.
I suppose I don't see much a difference between formal salaries and payments by other means.
We definitely need a living wage, and realistically that requires some form of currency once a society grows to a certain size. To change the basic need to have more power than one's peers, which is the root of accumulation of wealth, is a difficult task. Socialism would simply express this need through other means.
That'd be a good start. Have the parties' promises displayed on a big board outside the House of Commons, with promised deadlines and the completion status of each pledge.
Also, let's bring some class back to the house. For every £1000 earned outside of their day job, give them a foot of cloak to wear, with the names of their employers pasted on the cloaks. Good luck to the ones wandering around with cloaks longer than a bus. Include sponsored junkets in the mix, and require they wear their cloaks whenever they're working or travelling on anything but trips paid for themselves or the state.
Forbid them from employing family members who have time commitments that would indicate their inability to do the job for which they are being paid.
Fix their housing allowances to cover only modest renting in London for their time spent there. Base this on the modal income of their constituency, adjusted to be at least as high as the salary of an entry level police sergeant. Right now these fuckers can claim more in housing than most people earn before tax.
What is to stop Amazon from buying up departments stores for a dime right before they finally fold and having Amazon stores, where you can try some things on, order it, and it is at your house by the time you get home?
What would stop Amazon? Sound business sense and reality are what would stop them from doing this.
It doesn't matter whether Amazon would buy sites or lease them - either way it's not going to be a "dime". Paying staff, and costs for 100,000 square feet for showrooms and fitting rooms seems pretty bizarre. They could do a bricks and mortar tie-in, but not at this scale while relying on their existing business model. The idea here is pretty much that the previous guy went bust because of a dying business model, so I'm going to jump in and do pretty much what he did? Maybe a smaller scale store with a specific focus - such as a tie-in to an Amazon specific product. Maybe a store that'd drive business to Kindle?
As it stands, your idea is jam packed with lunacy. The only way I can top your idea is to suggest that Jeff Bezos could drive revenues by publicly shitting in to a box of squirrels.
They know a big chunk of DVD players will honour the UOP, yet they choose to include it. DVD vendors are not at legal risk for ignoring UOP, while DVD manufacturers who don't honour UOP could find themselves being hassled in the US.
Where DRM is optional, it's the content creator who decides to use it that is at fault. Same with region coding.
That summing up of knights seems a bit like Renaissance fair history. You're right - knights didn't receive monthly bank transfers. In some cases they'd receive land, and the goodies they pillage. This tradition survived well in to era of gunpowder. There would also be knights fulfilling pledges to their lord or a king for which they'd get to keep their power and land, and perhaps rewards in the afterlife. Bards similarly were getting recompense for their work. In short, these were reciprocal arrangements. That they didn't receive salaries doesn't change this. You can't eat fame. This wasn't some medieval reality TV show, and knights used to shit in their armour.
I'd hope the RIAA could find time to explain the economics of the industry. i.e. the chargebacks and other fun instruments used to lessen or entirely remove the need to pay royalties to artists. For additional credit, have the MPAA explain why high grossing films can make a loss because Paramount sent a cut of the revenues to the fucking moon.
Sure. I'd say the NSA and GCHQ are engaged in an Atlantic-wide reach around. It's really not oversight - more some League of Doom thing done out of sight of their respective parents.
Her spores don't easily disperse through the air. We're pretty safe if we dig a trench around her, with a radius of roughly 3 metres. We'll fill the trench with pitch, and ignite it. That's pretty the standard approach to preventing the spread of Miley Cyrus.
Really? So which secret courts in the UK was s.petry referring to? Surely you can point to them? Or could you acknowledge the simple fact that s.petry was going on about the FISA court, yet again?
Europe.... I think I've heard of it.
So if I can't identify a secret court in the UK, this validates your belief that a references to secret courts, in the context of a discussion around British intelligence services, is referring to a US court?
Am I understanding you right? Isn't possible that Petry is wrong about secret courts in the UK, as we do appear to be discussing Britain.
The laws aren't secret, but some of the court decisions have been, and even some of those are being declassified. The courts use ordinary judges that rotate in from other courts, the courts aren't secret, but the warrants are. The oversight comes from Congress, the courts, and the executive branch.
GCHG is a British thing. i.e. not much oversight from US branches of government.
It's funny because the character he played wore a device that granted him sight, and here Burton is commenting negatively on Google Glass. Glad you were around to explain that.
I just don't like the tradeoff on iOS between "security" and freedom, because like nearly all such trades, it turns out the security is largely illusory.
Any thoughts on why iOS malware is pretty rare in comparison to attacks on the Android platform? If the restrictions on iOS aren't somewhat related, then what is the cause of this difference? I can't see market share being the main distinguishing factor - iOS has significant market share and a solid share of online use. Given that most of the security is illusory, would you have some specific examples where freedom of use has been curtailed on the promise of increased security?
Handbrake is a better example. Whenever I search via Google I'm seeing both sponsored links and search engine gaming to sell Handbrake in a wrapper. A company named Aimersoft figures highly in this behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
Editors, would you exercise some kind of fucking diligence here?
Ripoffreport is a random soundboard for anything. For example: a search for the word "meth":
Jenny muniz Jenevieve muniz Crystal meth addict. thief. con. burnt down her mothers house. las vegas Nevada
Apple Unlimited owned by Dave Apple Manipulative crystal meth addict sexually harasses employees and takes advantage of employees...and gets away with it Virginia Beach Virginia
FRANKIE LEE DEAVER DEAVER, FRANKIE LEE SCAM ARTIST !!! METH HEAD !!!! ADDICT !!!! CHRONIC JAILBIRD !!!! ANDERSON Missouri
Follow the link to kutv. It mentions Ripoffreport asking a 2000 dollar fee to remove her feedback? An important point missing from the summary. Is this true? If so, why is this mentioned but not mentioned in Techdirt's article or otherwise followed up?
Isn't there a legitimate mechanism to be used when Kleargear, a company that tries too hard to be geeky, is alleged to lie to credit agencies? Kleargear seems to be a bit iffy. They plaster their site in "verified by x" badges. Buysafe? What the fuck is that? I don't know, but for some reason I'm reassured that this hitherto unknown company guarantees this site is inspected and monitored. They have a TRUSTe seal! Wow, they've promised to abide by security policies that'll most likely never be inspected. TRUSTe means fuck all positive. Oh, but wait. They carry a badge from inc.com! Meh, it's the LinkedIn of companies. I'm a professor at MIT, and I have a 14" dick. If you believe that then TRUSTe probably means something to you.
tl;dr: Kleargear is at best a company that protests far too much. Ripoffreport is as good a source of information as YouTube comments. Slashdot editors don't bother following any links,and Slashdot is somewhere between The Weekly World News and Heat magazine.
1) Unjustified self-importance: applications that, even when not running, insist on having daemons running for updates or whatever else. If it's not core to the utility if the application then just fuck off.
2) Freebies that keep begging me to buy stuff. I'll either buy this or I'll take something for free. If the latter then don't be disingenuous.
3) stuff I paid for that gives me adverts. I paid for this, so fuck off when you either decide to use DLC or adverts to repeatedly well me shit that interferes with my user experience.
Well played, sir/madam!
Heh, true. The UN could pass a non binding resolution of "steady on there, lads!"
Fortunately CS gas, among other chemical weapons, was banned from use in war. There's plenty left for civilian pacification!
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/
It's great! Spray this stuff on an enemy army and you end up in the Hague. Lob it at your citizens and everything is just fine.
Yeah, removing the second jobs and one off fees would make sense. British MPs are not under-paid by any stretch of the imagination. It seems the average is £66,396 ($106,812), which is comfortably above the median salary for the UK. They also have a raft of expenses they can pull.
Anyone wanting to get rich by sitting on numerous boards and committees should be actively discouraged from seeking office. I'd rather see people in this to do the job, and with the salary as it stands I don't see issues in finding suitably qualified candidates. I'd understand as well that the government may well employ advisors on higher salaries, due to a need for specific expertise, but MPs do not require high expertise in any discipline that should be commanding salaries higher than the ones they already have. Obviously salary would vary based on their position - such as the Home Secretary probably pulling in more than a vanilla MP.
Some interesting sources:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2269520/Best-paid-jobs-2012-Official-figures-national-average-UK-salaries-400-occupations.html
Witless they may be, so it's maybe by chance they correctly modded you down. Alice: Germany, what about those salamis they make? You: It's good but the Italians really need to make better mustard Alice: What? You: Exactly! That's you in a nutshell
It could be interesting as well to outline things that shouldn't happen. E.g. The ability to suspend websites under the Stop Happiness In Terrorism Act will not be employed to take down a torrent website with no proven connection to terrorists.
I suppose I don't see much a difference between formal salaries and payments by other means.
We definitely need a living wage, and realistically that requires some form of currency once a society grows to a certain size. To change the basic need to have more power than one's peers, which is the root of accumulation of wealth, is a difficult task. Socialism would simply express this need through other means.
That'd be a good start. Have the parties' promises displayed on a big board outside the House of Commons, with promised deadlines and the completion status of each pledge.
Also, let's bring some class back to the house. For every £1000 earned outside of their day job, give them a foot of cloak to wear, with the names of their employers pasted on the cloaks. Good luck to the ones wandering around with cloaks longer than a bus. Include sponsored junkets in the mix, and require they wear their cloaks whenever they're working or travelling on anything but trips paid for themselves or the state.
Forbid them from employing family members who have time commitments that would indicate their inability to do the job for which they are being paid.
Fix their housing allowances to cover only modest renting in London for their time spent there. Base this on the modal income of their constituency, adjusted to be at least as high as the salary of an entry level police sergeant. Right now these fuckers can claim more in housing than most people earn before tax.
What is to stop Amazon from buying up departments stores for a dime right before they finally fold and having Amazon stores, where you can try some things on, order it, and it is at your house by the time you get home?
What would stop Amazon? Sound business sense and reality are what would stop them from doing this.
It doesn't matter whether Amazon would buy sites or lease them - either way it's not going to be a "dime". Paying staff, and costs for 100,000 square feet for showrooms and fitting rooms seems pretty bizarre. They could do a bricks and mortar tie-in, but not at this scale while relying on their existing business model. The idea here is pretty much that the previous guy went bust because of a dying business model, so I'm going to jump in and do pretty much what he did? Maybe a smaller scale store with a specific focus - such as a tie-in to an Amazon specific product. Maybe a store that'd drive business to Kindle?
As it stands, your idea is jam packed with lunacy. The only way I can top your idea is to suggest that Jeff Bezos could drive revenues by publicly shitting in to a box of squirrels.
No, blame both DVD vendors.
They know a big chunk of DVD players will honour the UOP, yet they choose to include it. DVD vendors are not at legal risk for ignoring UOP, while DVD manufacturers who don't honour UOP could find themselves being hassled in the US.
Where DRM is optional, it's the content creator who decides to use it that is at fault. Same with region coding.
That summing up of knights seems a bit like Renaissance fair history. You're right - knights didn't receive monthly bank transfers. In some cases they'd receive land, and the goodies they pillage. This tradition survived well in to era of gunpowder. There would also be knights fulfilling pledges to their lord or a king for which they'd get to keep their power and land, and perhaps rewards in the afterlife. Bards similarly were getting recompense for their work. In short, these were reciprocal arrangements. That they didn't receive salaries doesn't change this. You can't eat fame. This wasn't some medieval reality TV show, and knights used to shit in their armour.
I'd hope the RIAA could find time to explain the economics of the industry. i.e. the chargebacks and other fun instruments used to lessen or entirely remove the need to pay royalties to artists. For additional credit, have the MPAA explain why high grossing films can make a loss because Paramount sent a cut of the revenues to the fucking moon.
Sure. I'd say the NSA and GCHQ are engaged in an Atlantic-wide reach around. It's really not oversight - more some League of Doom thing done out of sight of their respective parents.
Her spores don't easily disperse through the air. We're pretty safe if we dig a trench around her, with a radius of roughly 3 metres. We'll fill the trench with pitch, and ignite it. That's pretty the standard approach to preventing the spread of Miley Cyrus.
She did meth?
This is my surprised face.
Maybe this thing would be improved to post stories to let us know nothing has changed?
http://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Everything's_OK_alarm
Really? So which secret courts in the UK was s.petry referring to? Surely you can point to them? Or could you acknowledge the simple fact that s.petry was going on about the FISA court, yet again?
Europe.... I think I've heard of it.
So if I can't identify a secret court in the UK, this validates your belief that a references to secret courts, in the context of a discussion around British intelligence services, is referring to a US court?
Am I understanding you right? Isn't possible that Petry is wrong about secret courts in the UK, as we do appear to be discussing Britain.
The laws aren't secret, but some of the court decisions have been, and even some of those are being declassified. The courts use ordinary judges that rotate in from other courts, the courts aren't secret, but the warrants are. The oversight comes from Congress, the courts, and the executive branch.
GCHG is a British thing. i.e. not much oversight from US branches of government.
Are you blocking some or all Javascript, or are you using a slightly esoteric browser? Adds are disabled just for me.
It's funny because the character he played wore a device that granted him sight, and here Burton is commenting negatively on Google Glass. Glad you were around to explain that.
I just don't like the tradeoff on iOS between "security" and freedom, because like nearly all such trades, it turns out the security is largely illusory.
Any thoughts on why iOS malware is pretty rare in comparison to attacks on the Android platform? If the restrictions on iOS aren't somewhat related, then what is the cause of this difference? I can't see market share being the main distinguishing factor - iOS has significant market share and a solid share of online use. Given that most of the security is illusory, would you have some specific examples where freedom of use has been curtailed on the promise of increased security?
Barrycade (noun):
A parade of people named Barry. The Barrycade originated in Boston's 1837 Barry uprising in which men named Barry marched in support of Barry rights.
Handbrake is a better example. Whenever I search via Google I'm seeing both sponsored links and search engine gaming to sell Handbrake in a wrapper. A company named Aimersoft figures highly in this behaviour.