It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. It doesn't matter what the law says.
Actually, the law DOES matter. The article points out that the lights did not meet statutory requirements. In other words, under that State's law, the light needed to be longer.
If the law didn't matter, then the ticket would have been upheld and we would have no news article. I am sorry you fail to understand this simple fact.
If you'd have to start slowing down while the light is still green...
That is a complete misunderstanding. If you are going at or around the speed limit and the light turns yellow, you attempt to stop. In all but the most extreme situations and unless you are past a threshold, you should have no problem stopping. If you are wondering what that threshold is, I would suggest consulting your State's drivers handbook. Most include the formula that the distance is calculated in.
I don't think you've been following the discussion. The problem isn't about people deciding whether or not to stop on yellow.
No, PART of the discussion is about timing. Other parts have been about what the law is regarding intersections, traffic hazards, blocking traffic. Other parts of the discussion have gone off into many tangents.
If you would like to narrow down what you are talking about that is fine, but please go and read the several hundred comments before claiming what a "discussion is about". I think you will notice that a fair amount deal with other issues.
If the light is still green when you get past the point of being able to safely stop, you shouldn't have to worry about the light turning yellow and then red before you can safely make it through the intersection.
This I absolutely agree with and at no point disputed. However, I have never seen a person prosecuted for this. Every time, without fail, the person tried to "make the light" after the light changed to yellow.
Which still has absolutely nothing to do with what color the light is when you leave the intersection.
Very true.
On another note, it also doesn't matter what the law says about being allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow light if the yellow light is too short, which is what the whole fuss is about.
I will disagree with you here. Many States have the assumption that you should ALWAYS stop prior to entering an intersection if a light is yellow OR red. If it extremely dangerous to stop you MAY enter the intersection on a yellow. The time limit for a yellow is not relevant in this case.
The law works as thus:
1) Unless the light is green when you cross the threshold you are running a red light.
2) If you were unable to safely stop you may be forgiven from 1.
3) If the light was red when you crossed the threshold, step 2 is always false.
In this system (at least 10 States use a variant) the duration that the light was yellow is never examined and is not an issue. A driver who enters an intersection when the light is not green has run a red light, it is that simple.
The OP stated:
No, it's not that simple. Florida law [state.fl.us] says you may not *enter* the intersection when the light is red. It's perfectly legal to enter on a yellow, and to be in the intersection on the following red.
Which is, I am sure, true for Florida, but not all States. My point was that every State has it's own rules. What you were taught where you got your license may not apply elsewhere. As always when these debates happen, everyone says "well this is the law" but fails to say "where I live." Jurisdiction matters.
If they really wanted us to be safe, they'd put up large easily-readable count-down timers so we'd know exactly how much time we have until it's red.
Or you could do the safe considerate thing and always stop at a yellow light. The reason several States have this system of law is to prosecute those who gun it through the intersection when the light turns yellow. An action that produces a significantly high number of accidents. When you see a light turn, STOP. There is no safer solution.
In the State of Oregon a yellow light is considered a red light unless you were "unable to safely stop". If you do enter the intersection on a yellow light and are judged to have been able to stop, you are looking at being charged with running a red light (misdemeanor or felony).
If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle).
This is not true in many jurisdictions. For example, in the State of Oregon (US), if you cross the intersections while the light is yellow, you have run a red light unless it you were "unable to safely stop." If you run the yellow light and it is judged that you could have reasonably stopped, you face exactly the same penalties as if it were red. You will also have a "running a red light" item on your driving history and insurance history.
Microsoft has a monopoly, Apple doesn't; that's the difference, and it's a difference that matters.
As several posters have pointed out, under US law it does not matter if you have a monopoly or not, that is irrelevant. (Look into: Title 15 USC; Sherman Antitrust Act; Clayton Antitrust Act; Robinson-Patman Act.) The issue, "has Apple acted to unreasonably restrict trade?" Per Title 15, paragraph 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
To fall within this section, it has been generally held that the situation needs to meet three criteria:
1) An "agreement" must exist between one or more parties.
2) The "agreement" must "unreasonably restrict" trade.
3) Interstate commerce must be effected.
The sections in quotation marks have a lot of legislative history and case law behind them.
Again read Title 15 of the USC for more information:
Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
I am not disputing what you say, but do you have any source material on this? I would love to see a news article about Sony having to apologize or put the feature back.
I know that Amazon has announced that they will be offering a 20% refund to EU customers due to this change (not sure if this is because Amazon is very customer-friendly or due to UK/EU sales law). Unfortunately in that case it sounds like Amazon is just eating the cost and that it will not be passed back to Sony.
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
Where I live I am pretty sure this would be criminal harassment. Not to mention blackmail.
I think this guy is lucky he has ONLY been charged with contempt of court. If he really did what is described, I think he could be looking at several years in Federal prison (trying to influence a judge in a Federal trial) and at least a year in State prison (harassment).
That is why they have announced that this is fixing a "security hole." Although if they could not use that bit of text I am sure they would say that this is just a "revised" feature. You know, sort of like that hole where the wall used to be. Its just a BETTER wall made of air!!!
Apparently you have never been to small claims court. It is pretty fast, very cheap and you can only win a small amount. It is as straight forward as possible.
If you simply wanted a refund you could file a claim against Sony in small claims court. You are looking at an average of $25 filing fees with the court (varies depending on where you live in the States). It can take a WHILE before you actually have a court date. I have never heard of a case where the time spent by the individual was more than 3 days effort, including the actual day spent waiting at the courthouse.
If you actually went to the effort of suing Sony and did not go the class action route (thereby giving up your right to sue in small claims court), my guess is that Sony would just give you the refund. It is simply easier to give you the money than pay an attorney to defend the action and on top of that, as a pre-trial settlement they could avoid attention and get a generally better deal than just winning the trial.
Personally I love it when they ask for this. Nothing pleases me more than writing a resume whose formatting seems to change based on what version of Office you're using...
I think you should probably change your default printer. Word files should not change formatting due to what versions. HOWEVER, the minimum margins are determined based on your default printer. If you are like me and have a wide range of printing devices, (or did) then you need to be careful that you have wider margins before you start typing.
Example:
1) I have the drivers for a Phaser 7500 printer which can print up to 12.6 by 47.25 inches. I can set my margins to 0" in Word. I create my document but don't change the margin settings.
2) I email the finished document to Joe HR. He has a HP Deskjet D1660 connected to his computer and has that driver as default (listed as 17.01 by 7.8 inches). As soon as he opens the document Word realizes that the document cannot fit and will adjust it to fit the new minimum margins (plus any padding settings added). This results in a smooshed resume.
If you just ensure you have a super crappy printer set as default before you start formatting your documents, you will avoid 9 out of 10 problems.
Word is also far from the only program that gets such information from your default printer. Pretty much any printing, design or layout software does too.
I have seen exactly one instance of this happening. I walked right out. Four months later the company as charged with unethical buisness practices. They even got sued by a Church of all things.
Asking to look at existing samples (a portfolio) or testing is one thing. Asking for free work is bound to get only inferior employees, lawsuits and criminal charges.
I would not want to work on a 5TB data set. UCK. HD space is pretty cheap though. I just Googled and the first HD I came across was a WD Caviar 1TB for $80. On my main personal computer I have about 1.2TB of disk space (mostly full now).
My main limit has been trying to avoid buying large drives. I had a 500GB drive have a CRC error with about 250GB of used space. It was a giant pain to try recovering anything on it before being sent out. That is when I even have an option of sending out a disc for replacement. Now most of mine have HIPPA or confidential data that I simply can not risk sending out. If a disc dies I just have to eat it.
I don't think anyone expects that they can transfer 5 TBs a month over a shared line. If you expect to transfer that much data I don't see why you expect to pay the same as the average user who is likely closer to 1 GB.
I expect that, I know I am not the only one who has made the same comment. My contract is for a 100Mb downspeed/70Mb upsdeed, both per second (home connection not cell). I expect that any amount of data I want to transfer is reasonable.
At peak speeds I could download 5TB of data in about 9 minutes. The best download speed I have seen topped 400Mb per second for a 10 GB file.
I do agree with your sentiments that the newer PS3s should have all of the options of the fat ones. However from a legal perspective I believe this would not qualify. It has been generally held that only specific claims can be enforceable (again I quote "all generalizations are false").
Example of enforceable statement:
"All models of the PS3 can run an 'Other OS'."
"Slim models of the PS3 have every feature that previous PS3's have had."
Both of these statements are non-vague. They have specific claims that state, if you by this product, you WILL have this feature. However vague statements are generally considered to be obviously propaganda and courts (Federal) have stated that it is generally understood that sales people exaggerate and consumers understand that.
The example you have given, "It only does everything" would most likely fall into the vague and unenforceable category. The average person should know it does not make toast and should reasonable assume that this is just sales-hype. Because there is no specific item a reasonable person can point to and say "this feature was claimed in that statement," it is likely that this would make for a weak case (for false advertising). That is not to say that they have not made other statements that would be in error, just that your example seems unlikely to stand up in court.
I could always be wrong however. I took all of 10 minutes evaluating the situation based on comments by other people. If you feel strongly that this is wrong I would encourage you to fill a complaint with the FTC. Possibly even contact an attorney (possibly the consumer protection agency or DA's office) and discuss this issue in more detail.
I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!
I believe he is referring to statutory rape. In many jurisdictions it is a crime (statutory rape) for a person to have sex with another person who is under a given age. In some jurisdiction an exception is made if both persons are in a within a certain age range of each other.
To paraphrase his belief, it is that, if a child is educated about sex they are more likely to have sex. Therefor, because all sex while under the age of consent is statutory rape, all sex education encourages rape.
Having said that, I doubt very much that he will be a DA for much longer if he acts out his personal beliefs, by threatening teachers with prosecution on grounds that are at best, questionable.
I am willing to bet your internet connection is faster/more stable than his. I would also be that you are both using a different version of the 360. (There are how many different motherboards now?)
I have had "two" 360's. A launch and one built in the last year. The launch "one" (it was replaced several times do to RRoD) was significantly slower when installing updates or pretty much anything. I even measured the delay between action sent to the console (like hitting a button) and display on an output device (TV, computer, timing device). The old system had a consistent 40% larger delay on average.
Tens of millions of people updated to this firmware days ago with no problems at all like every other PS3 firmware in the past.
Do you have any clue what a fucking moron you sound like babbling about 'So my questions is, do they not even test their updates on the PS 3s?' because some dimwit in the media writes a blog post linking to a few forum posts?
Honestly, shut the fuck up idiot.
I agree, so many people don't realize what complete fools they sound like when they post things on/.... *cough*
I'm still on my original Xbox360 (bought about 6 months after it came out).
I am not sure if I want to be happy for you, or mad at you. =P
I had a launch 360 that RRoD'd 5 times before the warranty went out (I had to pay for shipping twice too). I recently had to replace it with a second 360.
Either way, I wish you great success in having no issues!
Installing a secondary OS may have been your particular purpose, but a retailer wouldn't know that... It's something that less than 1% of purchasers would do.
This item is actually very clear. Under Federal and (most) State laws, if you advertise something that the product does not have, you are guilty of false advertising.
To go into more detail, if the PS3 box says you have an option to install an "other" OS then it MUST allow you to do so. In this case Sony marketed the product as having this option. Why *YOU* bought it is irrelevant. The only issue you need to prove to win on this issue, is that Sony advertised a feature that was not there (or was removed in this case).
However, it does not seem to me that in this is the case in this instance. Here is why:
1) (To my knowledge) Sony only advertised that this option existed on the "fat" PS3. They stopped advertising this option on follow up models and prior to this current system update.
2) The "fat" PS3 can use the "other OS" option without the system update.
The weak point in my analysis is that you are put in a position where you have to pick which feature you want (I assume PSN is advertised as a selling point). It is not ridiculous to see a court ruling that the advertising implies (or did) that both features should be accessible at the same time.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Can you prove "PJ" exists? No? Than shut the fuck up.
Yes actually. Aside from all of the legal and factual evidence, the many people who have met her and publicly stated so, *I* also have had the pleasure of being introduced to her.
I would suggest that maybe you should accept your own advice. Though I dare say I would say it with a bit more civility. (Something about, "better to stay silent than speak and remove all doubt," comes to mind...)
Sorry mate but in no way are those casinos blocked. The US Federal Government closed loopholes in transfer of funds that were used to launder money that is all.
I myself continue to legally play poker online (for money). I pay taxes on the income from that online poker. A friend of mine gambles online as his sole income. Under IRS guidelines he is running a sole proprietorship (company) and has to keep extensive records for tax purposes. He provides thousands of documents listing what he played, what site, when and how much he won/lost on each session to the Government every year. He was even audited last year.
The change in Federal law basically makes how you get money to and from online casinos different than it was before (with more transparency in regards to the financial records). Other than that it is pretty much exactly the same as before.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. It doesn't matter what the law says.
Actually, the law DOES matter. The article points out that the lights did not meet statutory requirements. In other words, under that State's law, the light needed to be longer.
If the law didn't matter, then the ticket would have been upheld and we would have no news article. I am sorry you fail to understand this simple fact.
If you'd have to start slowing down while the light is still green...
That is a complete misunderstanding. If you are going at or around the speed limit and the light turns yellow, you attempt to stop. In all but the most extreme situations and unless you are past a threshold, you should have no problem stopping. If you are wondering what that threshold is, I would suggest consulting your State's drivers handbook. Most include the formula that the distance is calculated in.
I don't think you've been following the discussion. The problem isn't about people deciding whether or not to stop on yellow.
No, PART of the discussion is about timing. Other parts have been about what the law is regarding intersections, traffic hazards, blocking traffic. Other parts of the discussion have gone off into many tangents.
If you would like to narrow down what you are talking about that is fine, but please go and read the several hundred comments before claiming what a "discussion is about". I think you will notice that a fair amount deal with other issues.
If the light is still green when you get past the point of being able to safely stop, you shouldn't have to worry about the light turning yellow and then red before you can safely make it through the intersection.
This I absolutely agree with and at no point disputed. However, I have never seen a person prosecuted for this. Every time, without fail, the person tried to "make the light" after the light changed to yellow.
Which still has absolutely nothing to do with what color the light is when you leave the intersection.
Very true.
On another note, it also doesn't matter what the law says about being allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow light if the yellow light is too short, which is what the whole fuss is about.
I will disagree with you here. Many States have the assumption that you should ALWAYS stop prior to entering an intersection if a light is yellow OR red. If it extremely dangerous to stop you MAY enter the intersection on a yellow. The time limit for a yellow is not relevant in this case.
The law works as thus:
1) Unless the light is green when you cross the threshold you are running a red light.
2) If you were unable to safely stop you may be forgiven from 1.
3) If the light was red when you crossed the threshold, step 2 is always false.
In this system (at least 10 States use a variant) the duration that the light was yellow is never examined and is not an issue. A driver who enters an intersection when the light is not green has run a red light, it is that simple.
The OP stated:
No, it's not that simple. Florida law [state.fl.us] says you may not *enter* the intersection when the light is red. It's perfectly legal to enter on a yellow, and to be in the intersection on the following red.
Which is, I am sure, true for Florida, but not all States. My point was that every State has it's own rules. What you were taught where you got your license may not apply elsewhere. As always when these debates happen, everyone says "well this is the law" but fails to say "where I live." Jurisdiction matters.
If they really wanted us to be safe, they'd put up large easily-readable count-down timers so we'd know exactly how much time we have until it's red.
Or you could do the safe considerate thing and always stop at a yellow light. The reason several States have this system of law is to prosecute those who gun it through the intersection when the light turns yellow. An action that produces a significantly high number of accidents. When you see a light turn, STOP. There is no safer solution.
In the State of Oregon a yellow light is considered a red light unless you were "unable to safely stop". If you do enter the intersection on a yellow light and are judged to have been able to stop, you are looking at being charged with running a red light (misdemeanor or felony).
If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle).
This is not true in many jurisdictions. For example, in the State of Oregon (US), if you cross the intersections while the light is yellow, you have run a red light unless it you were "unable to safely stop." If you run the yellow light and it is judged that you could have reasonably stopped, you face exactly the same penalties as if it were red. You will also have a "running a red light" item on your driving history and insurance history.
Microsoft has a monopoly, Apple doesn't; that's the difference, and it's a difference that matters.
As several posters have pointed out, under US law it does not matter if you have a monopoly or not, that is irrelevant. (Look into: Title 15 USC; Sherman Antitrust Act; Clayton Antitrust Act; Robinson-Patman Act.) The issue, "has Apple acted to unreasonably restrict trade?" Per Title 15, paragraph 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
To fall within this section, it has been generally held that the situation needs to meet three criteria:
1) An "agreement" must exist between one or more parties.
2) The "agreement" must "unreasonably restrict" trade.
3) Interstate commerce must be effected.
The sections in quotation marks have a lot of legislative history and case law behind them.
Again read Title 15 of the USC for more information:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=15USCC1
Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
I am not disputing what you say, but do you have any source material on this? I would love to see a news article about Sony having to apologize or put the feature back.
I know that Amazon has announced that they will be offering a 20% refund to EU customers due to this change (not sure if this is because Amazon is very customer-friendly or due to UK/EU sales law). Unfortunately in that case it sounds like Amazon is just eating the cost and that it will not be passed back to Sony.
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
Where I live I am pretty sure this would be criminal harassment. Not to mention blackmail.
I think this guy is lucky he has ONLY been charged with contempt of court. If he really did what is described, I think he could be looking at several years in Federal prison (trying to influence a judge in a Federal trial) and at least a year in State prison (harassment).
But write a short class? Esp during the interview process?
I completely agree that this is both useful and acceptable. Actually this is probably what the OP meant but it didn't sound that way.
That is why they have announced that this is fixing a "security hole." Although if they could not use that bit of text I am sure they would say that this is just a "revised" feature. You know, sort of like that hole where the wall used to be. Its just a BETTER wall made of air!!!
Apparently you have never been to small claims court. It is pretty fast, very cheap and you can only win a small amount. It is as straight forward as possible.
If you simply wanted a refund you could file a claim against Sony in small claims court. You are looking at an average of $25 filing fees with the court (varies depending on where you live in the States). It can take a WHILE before you actually have a court date. I have never heard of a case where the time spent by the individual was more than 3 days effort, including the actual day spent waiting at the courthouse.
If you actually went to the effort of suing Sony and did not go the class action route (thereby giving up your right to sue in small claims court), my guess is that Sony would just give you the refund. It is simply easier to give you the money than pay an attorney to defend the action and on top of that, as a pre-trial settlement they could avoid attention and get a generally better deal than just winning the trial.
Personally I love it when they ask for this. Nothing pleases me more than writing a resume whose formatting seems to change based on what version of Office you're using...
I think you should probably change your default printer. Word files should not change formatting due to what versions. HOWEVER, the minimum margins are determined based on your default printer. If you are like me and have a wide range of printing devices, (or did) then you need to be careful that you have wider margins before you start typing.
Example:
1) I have the drivers for a Phaser 7500 printer which can print up to 12.6 by 47.25 inches. I can set my margins to 0" in Word. I create my document but don't change the margin settings.
2) I email the finished document to Joe HR. He has a HP Deskjet D1660 connected to his computer and has that driver as default (listed as 17.01 by 7.8 inches). As soon as he opens the document Word realizes that the document cannot fit and will adjust it to fit the new minimum margins (plus any padding settings added). This results in a smooshed resume.
If you just ensure you have a super crappy printer set as default before you start formatting your documents, you will avoid 9 out of 10 problems.
Word is also far from the only program that gets such information from your default printer. Pretty much any printing, design or layout software does too.
Have them write you something small for free.
I have seen exactly one instance of this happening. I walked right out. Four months later the company as charged with unethical buisness practices. They even got sued by a Church of all things.
Asking to look at existing samples (a portfolio) or testing is one thing. Asking for free work is bound to get only inferior employees, lawsuits and criminal charges.
I would not want to work on a 5TB data set. UCK. HD space is pretty cheap though. I just Googled and the first HD I came across was a WD Caviar 1TB for $80. On my main personal computer I have about 1.2TB of disk space (mostly full now).
My main limit has been trying to avoid buying large drives. I had a 500GB drive have a CRC error with about 250GB of used space. It was a giant pain to try recovering anything on it before being sent out. That is when I even have an option of sending out a disc for replacement. Now most of mine have HIPPA or confidential data that I simply can not risk sending out. If a disc dies I just have to eat it.
Random HD price example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136490
I still don't know why I had so much trouble doing division earlier. =P
Yeah, I really don't know where I got the 9 minutes, it would be a bit longer at 22 hours, but still not bad really.
I don't think anyone expects that they can transfer 5 TBs a month over a shared line. If you expect to transfer that much data I don't see why you expect to pay the same as the average user who is likely closer to 1 GB.
I expect that, I know I am not the only one who has made the same comment. My contract is for a 100Mb downspeed/70Mb upsdeed, both per second (home connection not cell). I expect that any amount of data I want to transfer is reasonable.
At peak speeds I could download 5TB of data in about 9 minutes. The best download speed I have seen topped 400Mb per second for a 10 GB file.
I do agree with your sentiments that the newer PS3s should have all of the options of the fat ones. However from a legal perspective I believe this would not qualify. It has been generally held that only specific claims can be enforceable (again I quote "all generalizations are false").
Example of enforceable statement:
"All models of the PS3 can run an 'Other OS'."
"Slim models of the PS3 have every feature that previous PS3's have had."
Both of these statements are non-vague. They have specific claims that state, if you by this product, you WILL have this feature. However vague statements are generally considered to be obviously propaganda and courts (Federal) have stated that it is generally understood that sales people exaggerate and consumers understand that.
The example you have given, "It only does everything" would most likely fall into the vague and unenforceable category. The average person should know it does not make toast and should reasonable assume that this is just sales-hype. Because there is no specific item a reasonable person can point to and say "this feature was claimed in that statement," it is likely that this would make for a weak case (for false advertising). That is not to say that they have not made other statements that would be in error, just that your example seems unlikely to stand up in court.
I could always be wrong however. I took all of 10 minutes evaluating the situation based on comments by other people. If you feel strongly that this is wrong I would encourage you to fill a complaint with the FTC. Possibly even contact an attorney (possibly the consumer protection agency or DA's office) and discuss this issue in more detail.
I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!
I believe he is referring to statutory rape. In many jurisdictions it is a crime (statutory rape) for a person to have sex with another person who is under a given age. In some jurisdiction an exception is made if both persons are in a within a certain age range of each other.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
To paraphrase his belief, it is that, if a child is educated about sex they are more likely to have sex. Therefor, because all sex while under the age of consent is statutory rape, all sex education encourages rape.
Having said that, I doubt very much that he will be a DA for much longer if he acts out his personal beliefs, by threatening teachers with prosecution on grounds that are at best, questionable.
I am willing to bet your internet connection is faster/more stable than his. I would also be that you are both using a different version of the 360. (There are how many different motherboards now?)
I have had "two" 360's. A launch and one built in the last year. The launch "one" (it was replaced several times do to RRoD) was significantly slower when installing updates or pretty much anything. I even measured the delay between action sent to the console (like hitting a button) and display on an output device (TV, computer, timing device). The old system had a consistent 40% larger delay on average.
Are you sure your xbox is not just mad at you for wanting to play Forza and is giving you a 26 minute time out?
I agree, so many people don't realize what complete fools they sound like when they post things on /. ... *cough*
I'm still on my original Xbox360 (bought about 6 months after it came out).
I am not sure if I want to be happy for you, or mad at you. =P
I had a launch 360 that RRoD'd 5 times before the warranty went out (I had to pay for shipping twice too). I recently had to replace it with a second 360.
Either way, I wish you great success in having no issues!
Installing a secondary OS may have been your particular purpose, but a retailer wouldn't know that... It's something that less than 1% of purchasers would do.
This item is actually very clear. Under Federal and (most) State laws, if you advertise something that the product does not have, you are guilty of false advertising.
To go into more detail, if the PS3 box says you have an option to install an "other" OS then it MUST allow you to do so. In this case Sony marketed the product as having this option. Why *YOU* bought it is irrelevant. The only issue you need to prove to win on this issue, is that Sony advertised a feature that was not there (or was removed in this case).
However, it does not seem to me that in this is the case in this instance. Here is why:
1) (To my knowledge) Sony only advertised that this option existed on the "fat" PS3. They stopped advertising this option on follow up models and prior to this current system update.
2) The "fat" PS3 can use the "other OS" option without the system update.
The weak point in my analysis is that you are put in a position where you have to pick which feature you want (I assume PSN is advertised as a selling point). It is not ridiculous to see a court ruling that the advertising implies (or did) that both features should be accessible at the same time.
Can you prove "PJ" exists? No? Than shut the fuck up.
Yes actually. Aside from all of the legal and factual evidence, the many people who have met her and publicly stated so, *I* also have had the pleasure of being introduced to her.
I would suggest that maybe you should accept your own advice. Though I dare say I would say it with a bit more civility. (Something about, "better to stay silent than speak and remove all doubt," comes to mind...)
Sorry mate but in no way are those casinos blocked. The US Federal Government closed loopholes in transfer of funds that were used to launder money that is all.
I myself continue to legally play poker online (for money). I pay taxes on the income from that online poker. A friend of mine gambles online as his sole income. Under IRS guidelines he is running a sole proprietorship (company) and has to keep extensive records for tax purposes. He provides thousands of documents listing what he played, what site, when and how much he won/lost on each session to the Government every year. He was even audited last year.
The change in Federal law basically makes how you get money to and from online casinos different than it was before (with more transparency in regards to the financial records). Other than that it is pretty much exactly the same as before.