I've seen demonstrations of gaming as a service, where you play on a game server in a datacenter, and only see the graphics displayed locally. Works fine for Batman Arkam Asylum, not sure why you'd think that Photoshop would be so much harder to display. Gamers are pretty demanding as well.
You store the file on the server, do the work on the server, and all you do is display it locally to work on it, and download a local copy occasionally.
they'll sue for a ToS breach, or slander, or such. It doesn't matter. They'll get it thrown out of small claims. It's trivial to do. That you don't know how doesn't mean anything. Yes, you can claim back costs. Usually "reasonable" and so when you spend $100,000 prosecuting Samsung, and win, you'll get $45k back. Win for you. Have fun with your stupid and bad advice.
And they file a counter-claim for $[small claims court maximum]+$1, and it's thrown out of small claims court
I think you need to go back to high school. If you think that a billion dollar multi-national can't figure out small claims court, you are even stupider than you seem. The other popular trick is for them to not show up, then, if you re-sue to force payment (small claims judgments almost never come with enforcement), you have to do that in a real court, and they rock up with a team of lawyers so you can "win" but never collect.
Small claims court only works for person-to-person disputes. Everything else is excluded or can be gamed.
No, the law says that they can be sued for their illlegal practices. And Samsung knows that $100,000 to challenge a $1000 loss is not something they have to worry about too much. Unless the affected people form a class action suit, it'll always be cheaper for Samsung/Apple to break the law.
It's in the cites. Like I said, anyone who wouldn't believe it, wouldn't believe it with more evidence. There's no level of evidence that would convince the zealot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Just as a starting point. There's more, but I doubt there's any level of evidence that would convince the Loyal Comrades of the Party.
Congress made a law that the FCC can make regulations with force of law. Perfectly legal. If you don't like it, speak to your senator or representative.
Nope. Carter cancelled visas for those holding a passport of a country we were (almost) at war with. No sanctions were held against people for their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Iranian-born Muslims holding a Syrian passport were unaffected.
Do you not remember that Iran invaded US soil and captured Americans and held them hostage in a hostage situation funded by RNC in exchange for illegal arms and funding? It was suspected at the time, and dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but has since been 100% confirmed. Reagan wasn't involved in the initial hostage taking, but suported Iran after that, as a way to weaken Carter before the election. Treason to win the presidency is a Republican staple, since 1972. We still aren't sure there wasn't a treason every election since then. Only two have been proven, and a few more suspected.
You have no constitutional rights unless you're a citizen or already in the country.
That's debatable. The US blocked suits about Guantanamo to ensure no court case made it to the Supreme Court to rule on that. And the wording on rights is ambiguous. Some are "citizen". Others are "people". And still others are restrictions on Congress. The third, and possibly the second would apply to foreign non-citizens, while the first wouldn't.
Nope. The comments included legal Mexican immigrants. And targeting religions, in violation of the Constitution, up to and including illegal acts against US citizens that are "undesirable". ,br>Have you not been listening? Or are you just selectively listening to justify your bigotry?
But I think the real rub here is the people getting caught are getting mad, and they happen to live in the less than well off neighborhoods.
That's a good argument for integration. Segregation by SES doesn't work. It just makes things worse, and the US has never integrated.Ghettos by law, then by convention, then by coercion. We are still in ghetto by coercion. If we ever moved to an integrated society, we'd cut crime in half.
But the cops didn't break any rule to get this video. One pro-domestic-violence judge said so, but that was an unusual ruling, which is why it's on here.
When cops pull over a poor person, and see drugs, they seized it and nobody complains. When the cops stop an assault in progress, and seize video in plain sight, it's a problem? Oh yeah, one is super-rich, and the other is poor.
When the cops are notified about a crime in progress, they can enter and stop the crime. And arrest the perpetrator. And while doing so, seize evidence in plain sight. Apparently, the cops thought that a video system in plain sight included taking the recording. That seems reasonable to me. The judge ruled that taking evidence in plain sight requires a warrant. That's an unusual ruling, and likely wouldn't have been made under most judges.
Shame there were no photos taken of the injuries that could have been used in the court case besides the video.
I've seen multiple prosecutions botched because of something like this. When the video is seized at arrest, why take 1,000 photos to prove the crime? You have a clear video of it. Video thrown out, and the whole thing falls apart.
Domestic violence isn't the most common arrest. Though it might be up there for arrests after calls, the number one reason for a felony arrest in the US is still "bench warrant", enforced at the roadside. That is, more people are arrested for failing to appear, or something similar, while at a traffic stop than any other arrest type. Domestic violence is a common 911 call, and usually ends in an arrest, so probably the most common arrest for call out, but that denies the large number of silent felons who don't even know they are, until stopped while driving.
The prosecution didn't perform an illegal search and seizure. As near as I could tell from the article (I didn't do additional research), the police responded to a domestic violence call, and while stopping a crime in progress, noticed evidence (a video system) and confiscated it while in the regular and necessary duties of interrupting a crime in progress. It was money and effort that got the evidence excluded, not any error on the part of the "prosecution" who wasn't involved until long after the evidence was collected.
Evidence does not exonerate anyone, it can only be used to prove guilt.
So an alibi could never exonerate anyone?
The only charge the prosecution has is to prove guilt without violating someone's constitutional rights.
The Constitution doesn't spell out what the penalty is for improper evidence. Since it allows for allowing improper evidence, using improper evidence isn't strictly unconstitutional.
Both the idea that the evidence should be used, and the government agent who acquired it punished, and that the evidence should not be used, are consistent with the words and intent of the Constitution.
For example, a really determined troll could try to maintain an army of sock puppet identities of various ages to confuse the maturity filter.
The troll study I found showed that the trolls did use multiple identities to better troll, and having one troll post not be visible from the other account trolled the trolls, so they left. So, even if they found out what you were doing, it still drove them away. Though, the multiple accounts would take longer for any single one to have the troll ban placed on it, as the posts would be fewer per account. But many services look at IP, so someone with multiple accounts might gain a post or two more, but likely not much.
It takes 10 seconds to open the fuel cap, grab the hose, and engage the pump. Another 10 seconds to unhook everything. 20 seconds of work to go 600 miles.
It's generally illegal to leave your car unattended while you wait the 3 minutes for the pump to finish. And it's always legal to leave your car unattended to charge. So you have to count the waiting time for the full fillup with gasoline, and should exclude the wait time for the electric, unless using a road-side charger.
I don't think I was clear. Their posts disappear. They aren't there, except to be seen when they are logged on as themselves. Nobody else sees it, so nobody else will reply to it. You don't mask their replies, but mask the troll post from being seen in the first place by anyone.
They don't do it to annoy random people, but they do it for the attention/reaction. Block that, and they disappear.
That is why I am advocating a self-flag mechanism for insincerity. I think one of the primary characteristics of trolls is that they are NOT interested in a sincere dialog.
So the troll would voluntarily self-flag as troll? I don't see how a self-flag would work. The trolls will self-flag whatever is needed to cause a response.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen demonstrations of gaming as a service, where you play on a game server in a datacenter, and only see the graphics displayed locally. Works fine for Batman Arkam Asylum, not sure why you'd think that Photoshop would be so much harder to display. Gamers are pretty demanding as well.
No, they did that for themselves.
You store the file on the server, do the work on the server, and all you do is display it locally to work on it, and download a local copy occasionally.
they'll sue for a ToS breach, or slander, or such. It doesn't matter. They'll get it thrown out of small claims. It's trivial to do. That you don't know how doesn't mean anything. Yes, you can claim back costs. Usually "reasonable" and so when you spend $100,000 prosecuting Samsung, and win, you'll get $45k back. Win for you. Have fun with your stupid and bad advice.
And they file a counter-claim for $[small claims court maximum]+$1, and it's thrown out of small claims court
I think you need to go back to high school. If you think that a billion dollar multi-national can't figure out small claims court, you are even stupider than you seem. The other popular trick is for them to not show up, then, if you re-sue to force payment (small claims judgments almost never come with enforcement), you have to do that in a real court, and they rock up with a team of lawyers so you can "win" but never collect.
Small claims court only works for person-to-person disputes. Everything else is excluded or can be gamed.
Ban her? Send her there and build a wall so she can't come back.
No, the law says that they can be sued for their illlegal practices. And Samsung knows that $100,000 to challenge a $1000 loss is not something they have to worry about too much. Unless the affected people form a class action suit, it'll always be cheaper for Samsung/Apple to break the law.
It's in the cites. Like I said, anyone who wouldn't believe it, wouldn't believe it with more evidence. There's no level of evidence that would convince the zealot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Just as a starting point. There's more, but I doubt there's any level of evidence that would convince the Loyal Comrades of the Party.
The FCC doesn't make laws, that's Congress' job.
Congress made a law that the FCC can make regulations with force of law. Perfectly legal. If you don't like it, speak to your senator or representative.
Nope. Carter cancelled visas for those holding a passport of a country we were (almost) at war with. No sanctions were held against people for their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Iranian-born Muslims holding a Syrian passport were unaffected.
Do you not remember that Iran invaded US soil and captured Americans and held them hostage in a hostage situation funded by RNC in exchange for illegal arms and funding? It was suspected at the time, and dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but has since been 100% confirmed. Reagan wasn't involved in the initial hostage taking, but suported Iran after that, as a way to weaken Carter before the election. Treason to win the presidency is a Republican staple, since 1972. We still aren't sure there wasn't a treason every election since then. Only two have been proven, and a few more suspected.
You have no constitutional rights unless you're a citizen or already in the country.
That's debatable. The US blocked suits about Guantanamo to ensure no court case made it to the Supreme Court to rule on that. And the wording on rights is ambiguous. Some are "citizen". Others are "people". And still others are restrictions on Congress. The third, and possibly the second would apply to foreign non-citizens, while the first wouldn't.
Nope. The comments included legal Mexican immigrants. And targeting religions, in violation of the Constitution, up to and including illegal acts against US citizens that are "undesirable".
,br>Have you not been listening? Or are you just selectively listening to justify your bigotry?
But I think the real rub here is the people getting caught are getting mad, and they happen to live in the less than well off neighborhoods.
That's a good argument for integration. Segregation by SES doesn't work. It just makes things worse, and the US has never integrated.Ghettos by law, then by convention, then by coercion. We are still in ghetto by coercion. If we ever moved to an integrated society, we'd cut crime in half.
But the cops didn't break any rule to get this video. One pro-domestic-violence judge said so, but that was an unusual ruling, which is why it's on here.
When cops pull over a poor person, and see drugs, they seized it and nobody complains. When the cops stop an assault in progress, and seize video in plain sight, it's a problem? Oh yeah, one is super-rich, and the other is poor.
When the cops are notified about a crime in progress, they can enter and stop the crime. And arrest the perpetrator. And while doing so, seize evidence in plain sight. Apparently, the cops thought that a video system in plain sight included taking the recording. That seems reasonable to me. The judge ruled that taking evidence in plain sight requires a warrant. That's an unusual ruling, and likely wouldn't have been made under most judges.
Shame there were no photos taken of the injuries that could have been used in the court case besides the video.
I've seen multiple prosecutions botched because of something like this. When the video is seized at arrest, why take 1,000 photos to prove the crime? You have a clear video of it. Video thrown out, and the whole thing falls apart.
Domestic violence isn't the most common arrest. Though it might be up there for arrests after calls, the number one reason for a felony arrest in the US is still "bench warrant", enforced at the roadside. That is, more people are arrested for failing to appear, or something similar, while at a traffic stop than any other arrest type. Domestic violence is a common 911 call, and usually ends in an arrest, so probably the most common arrest for call out, but that denies the large number of silent felons who don't even know they are, until stopped while driving.
Funny how the judge only "does the right thing" when it benefits a member of the 1%.
The prosecution didn't perform an illegal search and seizure. As near as I could tell from the article (I didn't do additional research), the police responded to a domestic violence call, and while stopping a crime in progress, noticed evidence (a video system) and confiscated it while in the regular and necessary duties of interrupting a crime in progress. It was money and effort that got the evidence excluded, not any error on the part of the "prosecution" who wasn't involved until long after the evidence was collected.
Evidence does not exonerate anyone, it can only be used to prove guilt.
So an alibi could never exonerate anyone?
The only charge the prosecution has is to prove guilt without violating someone's constitutional rights.
The Constitution doesn't spell out what the penalty is for improper evidence. Since it allows for allowing improper evidence, using improper evidence isn't strictly unconstitutional.
Both the idea that the evidence should be used, and the government agent who acquired it punished, and that the evidence should not be used, are consistent with the words and intent of the Constitution.
For example, a really determined troll could try to maintain an army of sock puppet identities of various ages to confuse the maturity filter.
The troll study I found showed that the trolls did use multiple identities to better troll, and having one troll post not be visible from the other account trolled the trolls, so they left. So, even if they found out what you were doing, it still drove them away. Though, the multiple accounts would take longer for any single one to have the troll ban placed on it, as the posts would be fewer per account. But many services look at IP, so someone with multiple accounts might gain a post or two more, but likely not much.
It takes 10 seconds to open the fuel cap, grab the hose, and engage the pump. Another 10 seconds to unhook everything. 20 seconds of work to go 600 miles.
It's generally illegal to leave your car unattended while you wait the 3 minutes for the pump to finish. And it's always legal to leave your car unattended to charge. So you have to count the waiting time for the full fillup with gasoline, and should exclude the wait time for the electric, unless using a road-side charger.
They don't do it to annoy random people, but they do it for the attention/reaction. Block that, and they disappear.
That is why I am advocating a self-flag mechanism for insincerity. I think one of the primary characteristics of trolls is that they are NOT interested in a sincere dialog.
So the troll would voluntarily self-flag as troll? I don't see how a self-flag would work. The trolls will self-flag whatever is needed to cause a response.