This is just more government meddling in the affairs of a business.
Damn straight. Let's get the government out of the affairs of business entirely. No more consumer protection and no more business protection. Including no more court-enforced debt collection, garnishment, or intellectual property rights. If a business can't pry the money out of my hands, market itself out of "consumer confusion" by counterfeit products, and make their product uncopyable, them screw 'em. It should be the consumer's choice on how they deal with business, and businesses are free to decide whether they wante to enter the market or not.
Legal protections are part of a compact between businesses and their customers. They must protect both sides. Otherwise, there's nothing to convince the unprotected side to respect the protected side except raw force.
Of course, it had the smallest bed, the lowest hauling capacity, and the worst trailer rating, but why would you need any of that in a pickup truck?
Says a majority of the people who buy pickups and who, by the way, never fill the bed, haul anything that can't be lifted by two people, or pull a trailer.
And it also didn't happen when "his wife" claimed it did.
Yet that was never my thesis. And that also isn't what she claimed. As was pointed out to you earlier, "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault" means a call, and Pfeiffer doesn't report anything about the call logs for last Thursday.
But you keep right on applying Bartles-specific definition of "police report," and equating a call with a "police report," and demanding that one have been filed on Thursday... The police and courts will do their thing regardless of your meaningless beliefs.
Newsweek Writer Has Filed Complaint With Dallas PD Over Alleged Twitter Assault
and the very first sentence:
Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday in relation to a tweet that allegedly caused a seizure Thursday.
are in complete contradiction to the thesis that he made a police report?
It says the agreement can only be modified by a document signed by both parties. Then the NOTICE section says that they can unilaterally change it without notice at any time.
That depends on who and where you are. I'm certain that some other governments who can pull Google's strings have the means to harm you far more than the Egyptian government. That may even be true for many Egyptians.
Then don't use the application. You're free to completely secret, and thus incommunicado, by not initiating a connection through Google and remaining blocked.
Yes, but the dispatcher would log the call and the content.
Yes. Now point to any reporting that there's no log of the call. You can't, because the incompetent TheDC reporter only looked for a "police report" or complaint, which is a written form (e.g., the complaint forms here).
Now Pfeiffer reports that there is a police report, but can't be bothered to sort out whether it's "formal report" or to explain why a police investigation has started.
And that will be the end of "police report"-gate, since complaining that he didn't file a police report within 24 hours won't get traction with anyone except the super deplorable.
The print isn't even that fine. From the license agreement:
8. We reserve the right to refuse service and disable a customerâ(TM)s key at any time for any reason
"Again refer to section 8 of the TOS, which was written by our Attorney. " Not by any attorney remotely competent to practice copyright and licensing law. Instant loser in court.
Also this gem:
11. WHOLE AGREEMENT. This Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between us; and supersedes any proposed or prior agreement, oral or written, and any other communications between us relating to this specific granted license and the related obligations; and may be modified or supplemented only by a document signed by both parties to this Agreement. NOTICE: HRD Software LLC reserves the right to change or amend this policy at any time without prior notice.
Completely contradictory language crammed right together. No attorney read this. Not even an incompetent passed-the-bar-the-3rd-time dabbler.
..but you defended the claim that one was, with dishonest misdirection... a fabrication...
I'm confused -- where did I claim that a police report was filed? You claim misdirection (the civil complaint), but then use "fabrication" (the police report was filed, or perhaps the civil complaint is fake). Those terms mean different things -- you're all over the map.
To be clear: I claimed that a civil complaint was filed. I also later said that there was no evidence that Eichenwald's wife had not "called the police to report the assault." It's all there in writing. Quote the fabrication. Quote the dishonesty.
Prove that a call was not made. Prove that a civil complaint was not filed. Deal with this self-contradictory mismash of bad reporting ("Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Tuesday that the department still does not have a formal report, but that detectives have been looking into the case since Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Monday that a police investigation cannot happen without a police report").
Your "media," at a minimum, reports that he filed something with the DPD that has them "looking into the case." What is your motive for being "intentionally honest" by altering the wife's claim to have called the police into one of having filed a police report, by ignoring TheDC when its reporting begins to run against your preferred narrative, and by ignoring the civil complaint?
If I look at your post history, will I find a lot of this behavior, or is it only now in this specific case that you had a motive to be dishonest?
Oh, scary. If I look at your post history, will I find that you're projecting?
Oh fuck off. That's your issue, that the incompetent Tucker Carlson-lackey reporter didn't look for evidence of a call, and now Eichenwald must prove that that happened?
Which circles right back to the point of my first post: Eichenwald filed a verified complaint in court, for which there is proof, that none of you have an answer for. Which is precisely what someone wouldn't do if this was a hoax. Because perjury has an even greater potential penalty than filing a false police report.
"There's no proof that he did call the cops" -- "which anyone can bring on anyone" also -- so the deplorables pat themselves on the back and conclude that there's no way any of this happened. Too bad Twitter is going to give up their information without a fight, with proof of the message and the IP that submitted it, and the ISP will likely give up the subscriber information as well. Too bad merely sending the message would fall within Texas' definition of an assault. Too bad he can file a police report at any time up to the running of the statute of limitations, and did so.
Too bad the "call the cops" distraction is so irrelevant.
Probably the same reason that idiots don't know that "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault" means that someone has called the police, not that they have filed a police report.
If you want to prove that the call to report didn't happen, you'd look at call logs for the day, not for a written complaint or "police report."
When someone calls the police to report a crime, the police immediately generate a report and start an investigation.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The dispatcher could just as easily ask for them to file a written complaint with an officer. As I've had happen to me before.
A civil suit is not a police report, and neither was filed 4 days ago when "his wife" made the claim.
"His wife" didn't make that claim. She wrote "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault." Did your "media" look for a call or merely a written complaint? Perhaps you and your "media" should both improve your reading comprehension.
This puts your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to shame.
They're both fine. The narrative is that his story is a hoax. You post's purpose was to continue the narrative that his story is a hoax. The filing of a verified complaint in court does indeed put the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame... where "this" is not merely your unsupported argument concerning a non-existent police report (i.e., phone call).
He could still be lying, but he'll have upped his game to filing a false police report and perjury. Those are reasonably large stakes, and beat "I bet it never happened" speculation from random deplorables in my book.
There was a post on his account claiming to be his wife saying they filed a police report. Media has investigated and can fin no evidence of a report filed with various relevant police departments.
Too bad there's evidence that he filed the civil suit, with a court, case number, and filing date stamped right on it.
Puts the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame...
That's ridiculous on its face. Counter-example: I give you an ounce of gold and you give me a laptop. Extend that example to any comparable cashless payment platform.
Ah, youngsters.., they forget that an ounce of gold was cash, for example, classic US "double eagle" coins prior to 1933.
Hint: cash is any material object commonly used to exchange value, as distinguished from use for barter between individuals seeking specific items.
"Cashless" is any electronically-based payment system relying upon an exchange of information -- rather than material obects -- and requiring three parties, such as a buyer, a seller, and a payment system. Bitcoin's third party is those maintaining the blockchain.
That three party system invevitably extends to include the government, which will demand things like "complete user security settings and history (including confirmed devices and account activity)." Presuming that the information is not public to begin with, as in the bitcoin blockchain.
That is the correct site, you just have to click links to PDF files and read, if you are able to read.
Here's the thing. I can read. I read documents like this for a living. In this case, I can read the heading "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the notices of proposed rulemaking for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the final rule for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," and search the text of the PDFs (example) and understand that you are not linking to the "correct site."
The problem here is each and every one deals solely with human readable text to be included in recall notices, not an authorization to disable the operational capability of or otherwise deny access to a recalled device owned by a consumer.
While I personally don't have anything against this plan, posting links to irrelevant material and claiming that it authorizes the plan "if you are able to read" is bullshit.
Specifically identify the legal support by document name and page number, at a minimum, or STFU.
So... if that is possible, why would any company choose to acquire the debts and obligations of the company they are purchasing?
Because oftentimes they are buying a functioning business and they must. The secured creditors must release their security interests, the unsecured creditors can file suit and argue that there is successor liability, etc.
The situation is entirely different when the business is failing. Sure, you can't fraudulently sell assets for less than their reasonable value, carve up lines of business in odd ways to separate the revenue-generating portion of the line from the obligations of the line, etc. But you can sell off profitable lines of business for their value, or sell off assets for their value, while keeping the obligations and satisfying those that you can. That's exactly what happens in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy -- functioning parts and things that can be salvaged are sold so that they remain productive assets for someone, with the proceeds going to offset the debts. Since the cash, proceeds, and value of any remaining assets are usually less than the sum of the debts and obligations, there losses are allocated amongst the creditors. And customers are just a different, unsecured class of creditor.
Pebble will end up in bankruptcy, sooner rather than later. Lawyers for the creditors will look at what happened in a period before the bankruptcy to see if there is any way to recover additional funds, but so long as the transactions were reasonable, they won't be undone.
My understanding is that selling off all your assets right before entering bankruptcy is a reason to have those sales reversed by the courts.
No, a fraudulent sale is a reason to have sales unwound by the courts. If you have an arms-length transaction with a willing buyer at a reasonable price, you haven't done anything that a bankruptcy court wouldn't oversee and approve in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The company is done. Even in bankruptcy (which is likely coming), those assets would be sold, the obligations left with the defunct company and discharged, and the cash doled out first to the secured creditors, then (if any is left) to others. There's a rather complex hierarchy of priority, and who gets what amount of cents on the dollar is frequently negotiated, but customers are essentially unsecured creditors and very low in the priority scheme.
In short, you're not going to be able to force someone who only is interested in buying IP to also take on order, warranty, and support obligations for the product.
Internship income is earned income as surely as work income is earned income. You may be confusing this alleged student exemption with an exemption for dependents who earn less than the amount of the standard deduction in a year (currently $6300). Which these interns would blow past in the first month.
Which was being run by a fiscal emergency manager appointed by a Republican governor [Snyder], backed by a Republican House and Senate, and overseen by a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality run by a Snyder hack [Wyant], where the state agency and not the city was responsible for the technical decisions and implementation of a switch to Flint river water (without adequate corrosion control).
Blaming democratic officials for the lead contamination is like blaming your wife for failing to dodge your fist.
No, I've figured it out from his bio, a quick review of Texas expat voting laws, and his posting history.
First, he's an expat living in Japan, but too obtuse to mention it. Apparently, he's also too dense to consider that the fact that he can't vote in state or local elections doesn't extend to vast majority of us.
Second, he's registered in Texas as an expat that is "indefinitely away (older form) / do not intend to return (newer form)," but deeply resents the State of Texas for denying him the right to vote in a state system that he's neither subject to nor has any plans to return to. Of course, if he'd declared an intent to return he could have voted in state and local races, so I'm not feeling much sympathy.
Third, his comment history screams world class asshole with an inflated opinion of his own intellect. Not just once in awhile, but all day every day.
I'll take his all too frequent declarations of things being "pointless and closed" as a blessing and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight. Let's get the government out of the affairs of business entirely. No more consumer protection and no more business protection. Including no more court-enforced debt collection, garnishment, or intellectual property rights. If a business can't pry the money out of my hands, market itself out of "consumer confusion" by counterfeit products, and make their product uncopyable, them screw 'em. It should be the consumer's choice on how they deal with business, and businesses are free to decide whether they wante to enter the market or not.
Legal protections are part of a compact between businesses and their customers. They must protect both sides. Otherwise, there's nothing to convince the unprotected side to respect the protected side except raw force.
Says a majority of the people who buy pickups and who, by the way, never fill the bed, haul anything that can't be lifted by two people, or pull a trailer.
The Dallas Police Department appears to disagree, but what do they know.
Yet that was never my thesis. And that also isn't what she claimed. As was pointed out to you earlier, "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault" means a call, and Pfeiffer doesn't report anything about the call logs for last Thursday.
But you keep right on applying Bartles-specific definition of "police report," and equating a call with a "police report," and demanding that one have been filed on Thursday... The police and courts will do their thing regardless of your meaningless beliefs.
The title:
Newsweek Writer Has Filed Complaint With Dallas PD Over Alleged Twitter Assault
and the very first sentence:
Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday in relation to a tweet that allegedly caused a seizure Thursday.
are in complete contradiction to the thesis that he made a police report?
Please explain that one...
"Also this gem" is a topic transition.
And you might want to contrast (2) with the "NOTICE" sentence.
It says the agreement can only be modified by a document signed by both parties. Then the NOTICE section says that they can unilaterally change it without notice at any time.
"Also this gem" is a topic transition...
Then don't use the application. You're free to completely secret, and thus incommunicado, by not initiating a connection through Google and remaining blocked.
Yes. Now point to any reporting that there's no log of the call. You can't, because the incompetent TheDC reporter only looked for a "police report" or complaint, which is a written form (e.g., the complaint forms here).
Now Pfeiffer reports that there is a police report, but can't be bothered to sort out whether it's "formal report" or to explain why a police investigation has started.
And that will be the end of "police report"-gate, since complaining that he didn't file a police report within 24 hours won't get traction with anyone except the super deplorable.
"Again refer to section 8 of the TOS, which was written by our Attorney. " Not by any attorney remotely competent to practice copyright and licensing law. Instant loser in court.
Also this gem:
11. WHOLE AGREEMENT. This Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between us; and supersedes any proposed or prior agreement, oral or written, and any other communications between us relating to this specific granted license and the related obligations; and may be modified or supplemented only by a document signed by both parties to this Agreement.
NOTICE: HRD Software LLC reserves the right to change or amend this policy at any time without prior notice.
Completely contradictory language crammed right together. No attorney read this. Not even an incompetent passed-the-bar-the-3rd-time dabbler.
Just this.
I'm confused -- where did I claim that a police report was filed? You claim misdirection (the civil complaint), but then use "fabrication" (the police report was filed, or perhaps the civil complaint is fake). Those terms mean different things -- you're all over the map.
To be clear: I claimed that a civil complaint was filed. I also later said that there was no evidence that Eichenwald's wife had not "called the police to report the assault." It's all there in writing. Quote the fabrication. Quote the dishonesty.
Prove that a call was not made. Prove that a civil complaint was not filed. Deal with this self-contradictory mismash of bad reporting ("Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Tuesday that the department still does not have a formal report, but that detectives have been looking into the case since Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Monday that a police investigation cannot happen without a police report").
Your "media," at a minimum, reports that he filed something with the DPD that has them "looking into the case." What is your motive for being "intentionally honest" by altering the wife's claim to have called the police into one of having filed a police report, by ignoring TheDC when its reporting begins to run against your preferred narrative, and by ignoring the civil complaint?
Oh, scary. If I look at your post history, will I find that you're projecting?
Oh fuck off. That's your issue, that the incompetent Tucker Carlson-lackey reporter didn't look for evidence of a call, and now Eichenwald must prove that that happened?
Which circles right back to the point of my first post: Eichenwald filed a verified complaint in court, for which there is proof, that none of you have an answer for. Which is precisely what someone wouldn't do if this was a hoax. Because perjury has an even greater potential penalty than filing a false police report.
"There's no proof that he did call the cops" -- "which anyone can bring on anyone" also -- so the deplorables pat themselves on the back and conclude that there's no way any of this happened. Too bad Twitter is going to give up their information without a fight, with proof of the message and the IP that submitted it, and the ISP will likely give up the subscriber information as well. Too bad merely sending the message would fall within Texas' definition of an assault. Too bad he can file a police report at any time up to the running of the statute of limitations, and did so.
Too bad the "call the cops" distraction is so irrelevant.
"called the police" != police report as well.
Probably the same reason that idiots don't know that "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault" means that someone has called the police, not that they have filed a police report.
If you want to prove that the call to report didn't happen, you'd look at call logs for the day, not for a written complaint or "police report."
Assumes facts not in evidence. The dispatcher could just as easily ask for them to file a written complaint with an officer. As I've had happen to me before.
Quite simply, prove it.
"His wife" didn't make that claim. She wrote "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault." Did your "media" look for a call or merely a written complaint? Perhaps you and your "media" should both improve your reading comprehension.
FYI, a written compliant to the police was also reportedly filed yesterday.
They're both fine. The narrative is that his story is a hoax. You post's purpose was to continue the narrative that his story is a hoax. The filing of a verified complaint in court does indeed put the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame... where "this" is not merely your unsupported argument concerning a non-existent police report (i.e., phone call).
He could still be lying, but he'll have upped his game to filing a false police report and perjury. Those are reasonably large stakes, and beat "I bet it never happened" speculation from random deplorables in my book.
Too bad there's evidence that he filed the civil suit, with a court, case number, and filing date stamped right on it.
Puts the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame...
Such as associate any personally identifiable information, like a home shipping address, with a wallet ID? Yes, that would be truly odd.
Ah, youngsters.., they forget that an ounce of gold was cash, for example, classic US "double eagle" coins prior to 1933.
Hint: cash is any material object commonly used to exchange value, as distinguished from use for barter between individuals seeking specific items.
"Cashless" is any electronically-based payment system relying upon an exchange of information -- rather than material obects -- and requiring three parties, such as a buyer, a seller, and a payment system. Bitcoin's third party is those maintaining the blockchain.
That three party system invevitably extends to include the government, which will demand things like "complete user security settings and history (including confirmed devices and account activity)." Presuming that the information is not public to begin with, as in the bitcoin blockchain.
Here's the thing. I can read. I read documents like this for a living. In this case, I can read the heading "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the notices of proposed rulemaking for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the final rule for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," and search the text of the PDFs (example) and understand that you are not linking to the "correct site."
The problem here is each and every one deals solely with human readable text to be included in recall notices, not an authorization to disable the operational capability of or otherwise deny access to a recalled device owned by a consumer.
While I personally don't have anything against this plan, posting links to irrelevant material and claiming that it authorizes the plan "if you are able to read" is bullshit.
Specifically identify the legal support by document name and page number, at a minimum, or STFU.
Because oftentimes they are buying a functioning business and they must. The secured creditors must release their security interests, the unsecured creditors can file suit and argue that there is successor liability, etc.
The situation is entirely different when the business is failing. Sure, you can't fraudulently sell assets for less than their reasonable value, carve up lines of business in odd ways to separate the revenue-generating portion of the line from the obligations of the line, etc. But you can sell off profitable lines of business for their value, or sell off assets for their value, while keeping the obligations and satisfying those that you can. That's exactly what happens in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy -- functioning parts and things that can be salvaged are sold so that they remain productive assets for someone, with the proceeds going to offset the debts. Since the cash, proceeds, and value of any remaining assets are usually less than the sum of the debts and obligations, there losses are allocated amongst the creditors. And customers are just a different, unsecured class of creditor.
Pebble will end up in bankruptcy, sooner rather than later. Lawyers for the creditors will look at what happened in a period before the bankruptcy to see if there is any way to recover additional funds, but so long as the transactions were reasonable, they won't be undone.
No, a fraudulent sale is a reason to have sales unwound by the courts. If you have an arms-length transaction with a willing buyer at a reasonable price, you haven't done anything that a bankruptcy court wouldn't oversee and approve in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The company is done. Even in bankruptcy (which is likely coming), those assets would be sold, the obligations left with the defunct company and discharged, and the cash doled out first to the secured creditors, then (if any is left) to others. There's a rather complex hierarchy of priority, and who gets what amount of cents on the dollar is frequently negotiated, but customers are essentially unsecured creditors and very low in the priority scheme.
In short, you're not going to be able to force someone who only is interested in buying IP to also take on order, warranty, and support obligations for the product.
So, very, very wrong.
Internship income is earned income as surely as work income is earned income. You may be confusing this alleged student exemption with an exemption for dependents who earn less than the amount of the standard deduction in a year (currently $6300). Which these interns would blow past in the first month.
Which was being run by a fiscal emergency manager appointed by a Republican governor [Snyder], backed by a Republican House and Senate, and overseen by a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality run by a Snyder hack [Wyant], where the state agency and not the city was responsible for the technical decisions and implementation of a switch to Flint river water (without adequate corrosion control).
Blaming democratic officials for the lead contamination is like blaming your wife for failing to dodge your fist.
What part of "pointless and closed" are you unable to understand?
No, I've figured it out from his bio, a quick review of Texas expat voting laws, and his posting history.
First, he's an expat living in Japan, but too obtuse to mention it. Apparently, he's also too dense to consider that the fact that he can't vote in state or local elections doesn't extend to vast majority of us.
Second, he's registered in Texas as an expat that is "indefinitely away (older form) / do not intend to return (newer form)," but deeply resents the State of Texas for denying him the right to vote in a state system that he's neither subject to nor has any plans to return to. Of course, if he'd declared an intent to return he could have voted in state and local races, so I'm not feeling much sympathy.
Third, his comment history screams world class asshole with an inflated opinion of his own intellect. Not just once in awhile, but all day every day.
I'll take his all too frequent declarations of things being "pointless and closed" as a blessing and move on.