This is billionaire douchebags saying they could become even bigger billionaire douchebags is only they could bring in more foreign billionaire douchebags to replace American billionaire douchebags.
You're equating porn with advertising? Surely you are joking. One is filth-ridden trash, demeaning to women and men alike, imagined by sociopaths and enjoyable only to the sickest of perverts, the other is just people having fun in bed.
There is a difference between group projects, where each individual takes on a different part, which are then combined, and pairing, where two people work on exactly the same thing, at the same time, sitting next to each other.
It's not the amount of money, it's the sheer number of people he tried to extort. That he asked so little money and still managed to fail most of the time is no excuse.
...and he blackmailed the people on the pictures. It's still not rape, but it's quite a bit more evil than "just" posting private nude pictures without permission, which is pretty bad to begin with.
Meanwhile, Google and the like will get requests to add a new CA, they will research the new CA and find the same slimeballs in charge and never add the new CA to begin with. Nothing hurt but the pockets of some slimeballs.
Google's web services may not be a player in China (irrelevant, so I didn't check), but their browsers (desktop and android) most certainly are: http://www.chinainternetwatch....
I'm quite confident that most of these Google-browser users don't have a clue what digital certificates are.
Verisign, Thawte and GeoTrust would probably be treated the same way, if they failed to act of known false certificates. This isn't just "negligently or willfully making bogus certificates", this is mostly about failing to fix the problem after having been informed of having created "bogus certificates". Matter of fact, these CA's regularly update their recovation lists (CRL): https://isc.sans.edu/crls.html
We all know who the real April's fool is today; Slashdot editors. April's fool jokes are supposed to trick people into believing something which is obvious nonsense in hindsight. The Slashdot editors have been fooled into believing these stories were believable, even though they obviously aren't. Seriously, you can't think up a story about Apple announcing an iRing that controls other devices or CERN's LHC having found the flogiston particle?
The same could be said about somebody "conditioned" to associate the e-racing noises with racing and I might well learn to enjoy the sound of e-racing. But right now, I don't. I was merely stating my taste, to add a different point on view on the topic of noise, then sjbe went full retard about it. It's like demanding somebody to justify their taste in music or food.
It has to do with enjoying the sport. The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear. There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.
As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.
For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus. The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.
I'm not saying they are equal, as you probably already understood, but the NDA"s are obviously amoral and probably not legal either; a lawyer has a moral responsibility of the things they do as part of their employment just like every employee has moral responsibility. I understand the moral responsibility of a lawyer make take a somewhat more dualistic form (like knowingly defending a guilty criminal), but this situation isn't even remotely close to that.
Who is the victim in these situations? - School vs. Wikipedia - School vs. parents - School vs. students - Parents vs Wikipedia - Parents vs. students - Students vs. Wikipedia
And even that is an oversimplified view, if only because most of these parties may have multiple separate relationships to eachother.
There are enough rich people to sustain current high-end priced watches. A watch (or atleast anything beyond a $10 casio) is a fashion accessory. Just like all fashion, it pays to have absurd "haute couture" products that nobody really buys, because it makes famous people want to buy the high-end products, which makes ordinary people buy the low-end products where all the profit is made. Most top fashion brands famed for catwalk suits, dresses and clothing make most of their profit from branded handbags and belts that ordinary folk can afford. Same deal here; Tag Heuer is perhaps the most popular brand willing to risk their brand name in cooperating with Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Disallowing foreign competition is what is distorting the playing field.
You mean like disallowing customers to import goods sold on foreign markets at lower prices? You know; import protection.
If companies are against protectionism, they shouldn't get benefits of protectionism either.
This is billionaire douchebags saying they could become even bigger billionaire douchebags is only they could bring in more foreign billionaire douchebags to replace American billionaire douchebags.
FTFY
commercial libraries often come with legal indemnification clauses, which bring extra business value.
I know of NO software, whether it be libraries or applications, open source or closed source, that don't have a legal disclaimer in their license.
You're equating porn with advertising? Surely you are joking. One is filth-ridden trash, demeaning to women and men alike, imagined by sociopaths and enjoyable only to the sickest of perverts, the other is just people having fun in bed.
There is a difference between group projects, where each individual takes on a different part, which are then combined, and pairing, where two people work on exactly the same thing, at the same time, sitting next to each other.
It's not the amount of money, it's the sheer number of people he tried to extort.
That he asked so little money and still managed to fail most of the time is no excuse.
...and he blackmailed the people on the pictures.
It's still not rape, but it's quite a bit more evil than "just" posting private nude pictures without permission, which is pretty bad to begin with.
I wonder; was there ever such a thing as "Pair architecture" or "Pair mathematics"?
Except that their employment costs more tax money than their unemployment benefits would.
It's "art" because your tax paid for ~4 years of somebody slacking off and now he had a thought that everybody else already had years ago.
Meanwhile, Google and the like will get requests to add a new CA, they will research the new CA and find the same slimeballs in charge and never add the new CA to begin with. Nothing hurt but the pockets of some slimeballs.
Browser manufactures have a responsibility towards their own customers (users), not towards the victims of some untrustworthy CA.
Google's web services may not be a player in China (irrelevant, so I didn't check), but their browsers (desktop and android) most certainly are: http://www.chinainternetwatch....
I don't think "lessor" is a word, but if you meant "lesser" then you couldn't be more wrong: http://www.zdnet.com/article/n...
I'm quite confident that most of these Google-browser users don't have a clue what digital certificates are.
Verisign, Thawte and GeoTrust would probably be treated the same way, if they failed to act of known false certificates. This isn't just "negligently or willfully making bogus certificates", this is mostly about failing to fix the problem after having been informed of having created "bogus certificates". Matter of fact, these CA's regularly update their recovation lists (CRL): https://isc.sans.edu/crls.html
We all know who the real April's fool is today; Slashdot editors.
April's fool jokes are supposed to trick people into believing something which is obvious nonsense in hindsight.
The Slashdot editors have been fooled into believing these stories were believable, even though they obviously aren't.
Seriously, you can't think up a story about Apple announcing an iRing that controls other devices or CERN's LHC having found the flogiston particle?
The same could be said about somebody "conditioned" to associate the e-racing noises with racing and I might well learn to enjoy the sound of e-racing. But right now, I don't.
I was merely stating my taste, to add a different point on view on the topic of noise, then sjbe went full retard about it.
It's like demanding somebody to justify their taste in music or food.
It has to do with enjoying the sport.
The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.
As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.
For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus.
The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.
I'm not saying they are equal, as you probably already understood, but the NDA"s are obviously amoral and probably not legal either; a lawyer has a moral responsibility of the things they do as part of their employment just like every employee has moral responsibility. I understand the moral responsibility of a lawyer make take a somewhat more dualistic form (like knowingly defending a guilty criminal), but this situation isn't even remotely close to that.
That still doesn't shield them from moral responsibility.
If their client told them to murder a witness, should they do so?
"The boy who cried wolf" was also a warning, not an instruction manual.
Zooming into London, I passed five totally different map styles.
Realistically though, How could the BBC have resolved this any other way?
I predict we'll see announcements of a totally unrelated new show with all three hosts, called "Highest Gear" on a competing channel very soon.
People can be both victims and perps.
Who is the victim in these situations?
- School vs. Wikipedia
- School vs. parents
- School vs. students
- Parents vs Wikipedia
- Parents vs. students
- Students vs. Wikipedia
And even that is an oversimplified view, if only because most of these parties may have multiple separate relationships to eachother.
There are enough rich people to sustain current high-end priced watches.
A watch (or atleast anything beyond a $10 casio) is a fashion accessory.
Just like all fashion, it pays to have absurd "haute couture" products that nobody really buys, because it makes famous people want to buy the high-end products, which makes ordinary people buy the low-end products where all the profit is made.
Most top fashion brands famed for catwalk suits, dresses and clothing make most of their profit from branded handbags and belts that ordinary folk can afford.
Same deal here; Tag Heuer is perhaps the most popular brand willing to risk their brand name in cooperating with Google.