The people I joined to see the movie, expected a terrible movie
... and you all saw it anyways. Get a life. And tell those "people" who you joined to get lives too, if you ever see them again and happen to recognize them.
I'll tell you what, when I go out for entertainment, either me or somebody else I'm with is expecting to have a good time. That's the whole reason we're there. Maybe that's the part that was broken, and not anything about the movie?
Over-the-top is a more widespread concept than streaming media. More people use the phrase over-the-top than even know the difference between "watching," "streaming," and "downloading."
And, what an awful idea for them! Why don't they choose a term that makes them looks good, or is suggestive of their product?
Maybe they think that language is invented by marketing people? That they're considered an authority? I doubt even marketing people use the term at home. "Streaming" is faster and easier to say than their acronym.
That said, any time anybody uses an acronym for the first time in the document, they need to explain it. But if it is some niche shit that is a different niche than the specialized website they're writing for? Yeah, definitely deserving of ridicule. Maybe they don't need to explain CPU, but sure as heck better explain shit from teeveeland marketing.
It stands for "Over The Top," which means they're going to screw you so bad, you won't even believe how bad you're getting screwed, even afterwards. You'll always be like, "They didn't really do all that to me, did they? Am I overstating it?" You'll never quite believe how bad they were.
The part you missed about the story of the three little piggies; their economy wouldn't support a brick house for all three. It isn't a story about smarts, it is a story about the difference in outcomes according to resource access.
The thing about "compressed earth blocks" is, they're not bricks. As you noticed when talking about clay. Instead, they're something that can be made from a much wider range of input materials. That means that production can be scaled without boosting the price by competing for raw materials with all the other construction technologies. Clay is sometimes locally plentiful, but not compared to dirt. And the main other input is electricity, so you could have a giant factory in an arid region with lots of solar generation, and just run the machine during peak daylight.
You could build a factory in a poor country, and the people could actually use them to build houses. If you build a factory making clay bricks, those have more export value and somebody will get rich, and the villagers will still only have grass huts, or scrap and tarps, as the case may be.
Just stop looking at the instrumentation as if you're researching a problem or doing R&D. You're not doing R&D when you have a trivial mistake you can't find, you're just debugging.
Stop looking at the tools. Look at the code. If you find yourself saying, "It...can't...possibly...be...doing...that" just whack yourself over the head with the cartoon hammer right there, because telling yourself that is why you're having trouble finding it. You have to instead be asking, "why would it be doing that?" And stop making assumptions, like, "Oh, it can't be that one possibility, because I believe there to be a good enough sanity check." Or worse, "It can't be this one part, because we have a test case." Stop looking at your tools, look at your implementation, stop substituting your memory of what you believe to be correct and just look at the actual code. What does it do? If you had wanted what is really happening, instead of what you intended, what changes would you have made to what you intended? Does that uncover any edge cases? That's a much better type of question to ask than, "where are all the photons at each nanosecond according to the instrumentation?"
The best one I ever had was in `98. I spent 24+ hours looking for a bug in my Perl program. Turns out it was a typo, and I forgot to turn on "use strict" which catches those. I was not used to typos even being a class of bug I needed to consider.
The only other thing I'd say about it is that understanding compiler/interpreter implementation can really help when you're edge-case stuff like embedded systems. So I'm not saying to ignore the tools; think about the tools as other pieces of code, don't just use the tools to try to find mistakes. All mistakes are PEBCAK. Thinking about your tool is more useful than asking your tool to think for you.
There is no chance that that would happen in this case. The trial judge could do it, I wouldn't put it past anybody at that level, but it would get tossed on appeal. That's just a negotiating tactic, not a real punishment.
If you never got fucked, you can't be a cuckold. The whole point is that you already have a nest, with some eggs in it.
And a different bird (the cuckoo) comes and lays its egg in your nest when you're not looking. Everybody got fucked the same number of times. (once) Birds that didn't get fucked didn't stay to take care of a nest, and didn't get cuckolded.
Same with humans. You can't normally cuckold somebody who isn't getting any. The cuckoo is always second fiddle. It is important that the cuckold is getting fucked too, so that they'll stay in the nest and take care of the brood.
Broods parasites who attempt to parasitize individuals without a brood are unlikely to be very successful. The same is true for fetishists; you can't effectively role-play a cuck if you're not already fucking somebody. It is a 2+1 game.
FB can't have people steal private information from their users. It's pretty much like stealing their source of income.
Bug, because EULA. The security-related part would only be a side door.
If you don't heart them backdooring you, don't give them the key to your side door. If you want a reach-around, you'll have to go searching in your friend list; don't expect it from Zuck.
Let's annoy our customers by taking away the lyrics feature! -- Good one! What else?
Let's start requiring home addresses so we can sell their info to marketers. -- Great! This is going to make people love us. We'll tell them we are going all Draconians on all family members have to have the same addresses. Screw their parents in the military and kids in college.
Lyrics have separate copyright issues. Spotify never provided lyrics themselves. They used to have a partnership with a company so that they could just give your metadata to that company behind the scenes, and show the lyrics in their app. But they were not the ones who licensed it. Then they ended that partnership; you can still get the exact same lyrics from the exact same company by installing both apps. The other app can show the lyrics for the song that is playing in spotify. I don't know how much it cost them, but if it was less than millions they'd have probably kept it.
They do still provide lyrics inside the app via a different company, but there is less coverage. According to the internet, you can click the "now playing" bar at the bottom of the app and get lyrics, for supported songs.
If your parents are in the military, maybe they can get a ticket for USO show, or something? If your kids are in college... yeah, they probably know how to get media. ROFL
PS: Draconians was a play on words. If you were intentionally trying to make a cultural reference, you would need to try harder to work it into the grammar. Draconians, in your favorite show, were from the planet Draconia. In your attempted reference, it would only be "going all Draconian" and the only hint would be the capitalization. You would need to change it so you say something like, "acting like a bunch of Draconians" if you wanted that word form. The standard term draconian refers to being like Draco (650-600 BCE) who was elected by the people of Athens to be their law-giver, then he surprised them with laws that were much harsher than they had expected or intended. All crimes were punishable by death, except debt (punished by slavery) and unintentional homicide, punished by exile. (yes, shoplifting and debt were worse crimes than negligent manslaughter) (all his laws other than the homicide law were repealed by Solon)
The more salient point is though is that, like most words, there is more than one known definition of "family." And they're using one of the traditional ones, such as is used in the phrase "single family home."
Here, it is synonymous with "household."
There is no ambiguity.
Also, if there was ambiguity, then nobody would be "cheating" them.
Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?
Right, if I fill out the forms for a vanity license plate, but I use trademarked terms, then I might end up losing the plate. And whatever I paid the State to give it to me.
You don't have a right to pretend your car is work vehicle from Brandybrand(TM).
Phone numbers are trickier; if there is no evidence of bad faith, and you're only using it as a number, then you can keep it. But if it spells out a trademark, and your practice is to tell people to dial that trademark to get ahold of you, you're probably going to lose the number.
Also, if you don't pay property taxes, they eventually take your property. If you want to call that "stealing," then this is the same. But be advised, you'll be unable to have fruitful discussions with people who understand how the rules work if you choose to use different words than everybody else.
Yes. But unless you're competent to represent yourself in legal matters, you'll have to hire a lawyer. And you'll have to travel to hearings and such, or the lawyer will. Either way, it will cost you a lot more than $2k.
But in the end you will win if they asked for more than recovery of their costs.
That's why, you pay the $2k, but if they make more expensive demands, you hire lawyers and take what is rightfully yours.
They would not make it to a trial, or even to discovery. They would only make it to a show cause hearing, where the judge would decide to punish their lawyer for filing the case, or just toss it out.
You have to have cause to sue somebody. If they want to take to take this to a "real" court, they need a real claim that they think they're the trademark holder. They don't have that. All they have is an extortionate demand based on trademarks they cannot and have not disputed.
This would be a different situation if they were some company who had also actually been using the trademark as a trademark! Without that part, they were on thin ice just plotting the scheme.
How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
If I have a Trademark, and you own the domain, and you don't turn it over to me, you're cybersquatting. That is the system in place.
If you weren't cybersquatting, your use of the domain, by definition, would preempt my trademark application. If in fact I was using the name in trade before you, then I am the one with the claim to the name. That is true if you accidentally had the same name for a non-trade use before I engaged in trade, or if, as in this case, you heard about me doing trade under the name and tried to win a race with me to register it first.
If other sports teams were using the name "Titletown" in their business communications, they should talk to their lawyers to figure out who used it first. If it was just a phrase that local TV sports anchors sometimes used casually, then no luck. Or if fans uttered it, who cares. Or if a bragging player said it unofficially, who cares?
I also use an anonymizing service for domain name stuff.
If you think that is slimy, you should see the ship that domain owners have to go through!
Heck, I even heard about some sportsball team that had people try to squat on the domain that named their major joint project, after they publicly announced the project name!
You think I'm slimy, you should see the people I'm hiding from!
No, we know that he had had a 30 minute meeting with the Saudis where they had agreed to taking Tesla private, but that the details of an offer hadn't been worked out. We don't know if particular prices were floated at that meeting, but there was no solid agreement. But get this; there could be no agreement possible, the board would have to vote to authorize the negotiation for that to happen! So since the public knew the board hadn't considered it, it is impossible to think that an agreement had been made.
We won't know what the Court makes of the word "secured" until the Court makes various rulings, and that's if there isn't some sort of settlement that prevents it from ever being ruled on. But it sounds a lot worse without context than it does if you have the context.
And in cases where they were accused of lying and found to have done it, were they usually banned for life from working in the same field? In that normally how the SEC handles executives?
Given that they're asking the equivalent of the death penalty (it is the worst penalty they can ask for and ends the person's career) it would look pretty bad if other executives have been found to do much much worse, and weren't banned.
Slashdot Mirror
( Unstoppable force / immovable object ) * internet
I'm not convinced we have to live with it. With regional internets on the rise, the future might just see them unplugged.
Wait, you're hoping your cell phone is going to get you laid?!
I met a guy who believed that, but it was 1996 and still true then.
Online sarcasm was deprecated in 1987
The people I joined to see the movie, expected a terrible movie
... and you all saw it anyways. Get a life. And tell those "people" who you joined to get lives too, if you ever see them again and happen to recognize them.
I'll tell you what, when I go out for entertainment, either me or somebody else I'm with is expecting to have a good time. That's the whole reason we're there. Maybe that's the part that was broken, and not anything about the movie?
Shorter old neckbeard: "If I was gunna rob a bank, I'd do it differently than that, therefore that movie is impossible."
Over-the-top is a more widespread concept than streaming media. More people use the phrase over-the-top than even know the difference between "watching," "streaming," and "downloading."
And, what an awful idea for them! Why don't they choose a term that makes them looks good, or is suggestive of their product?
Maybe they think that language is invented by marketing people? That they're considered an authority? I doubt even marketing people use the term at home. "Streaming" is faster and easier to say than their acronym.
That said, any time anybody uses an acronym for the first time in the document, they need to explain it. But if it is some niche shit that is a different niche than the specialized website they're writing for? Yeah, definitely deserving of ridicule. Maybe they don't need to explain CPU, but sure as heck better explain shit from teeveeland marketing.
The slashvertiser should demand a refund.
It stands for "Over The Top," which means they're going to screw you so bad, you won't even believe how bad you're getting screwed, even afterwards. You'll always be like, "They didn't really do all that to me, did they? Am I overstating it?" You'll never quite believe how bad they were.
The part you missed about the story of the three little piggies; their economy wouldn't support a brick house for all three. It isn't a story about smarts, it is a story about the difference in outcomes according to resource access.
The thing about "compressed earth blocks" is, they're not bricks. As you noticed when talking about clay. Instead, they're something that can be made from a much wider range of input materials. That means that production can be scaled without boosting the price by competing for raw materials with all the other construction technologies. Clay is sometimes locally plentiful, but not compared to dirt. And the main other input is electricity, so you could have a giant factory in an arid region with lots of solar generation, and just run the machine during peak daylight.
You could build a factory in a poor country, and the people could actually use them to build houses. If you build a factory making clay bricks, those have more export value and somebody will get rich, and the villagers will still only have grass huts, or scrap and tarps, as the case may be.
I go the exact opposite direction of him!
Just stop looking at the instrumentation as if you're researching a problem or doing R&D. You're not doing R&D when you have a trivial mistake you can't find, you're just debugging.
Stop looking at the tools. Look at the code. If you find yourself saying, "It...can't...possibly...be...doing...that" just whack yourself over the head with the cartoon hammer right there, because telling yourself that is why you're having trouble finding it. You have to instead be asking, "why would it be doing that?" And stop making assumptions, like, "Oh, it can't be that one possibility, because I believe there to be a good enough sanity check." Or worse, "It can't be this one part, because we have a test case." Stop looking at your tools, look at your implementation, stop substituting your memory of what you believe to be correct and just look at the actual code. What does it do? If you had wanted what is really happening, instead of what you intended, what changes would you have made to what you intended? Does that uncover any edge cases? That's a much better type of question to ask than, "where are all the photons at each nanosecond according to the instrumentation?"
The best one I ever had was in `98. I spent 24+ hours looking for a bug in my Perl program. Turns out it was a typo, and I forgot to turn on "use strict" which catches those. I was not used to typos even being a class of bug I needed to consider.
The only other thing I'd say about it is that understanding compiler/interpreter implementation can really help when you're edge-case stuff like embedded systems. So I'm not saying to ignore the tools; think about the tools as other pieces of code, don't just use the tools to try to find mistakes. All mistakes are PEBCAK. Thinking about your tool is more useful than asking your tool to think for you.
There is no chance that that would happen in this case. The trial judge could do it, I wouldn't put it past anybody at that level, but it would get tossed on appeal. That's just a negotiating tactic, not a real punishment.
You need to upgrade your birding knowledge.
If you never got fucked, you can't be a cuckold. The whole point is that you already have a nest, with some eggs in it.
And a different bird (the cuckoo) comes and lays its egg in your nest when you're not looking. Everybody got fucked the same number of times. (once) Birds that didn't get fucked didn't stay to take care of a nest, and didn't get cuckolded.
Same with humans. You can't normally cuckold somebody who isn't getting any. The cuckoo is always second fiddle. It is important that the cuckold is getting fucked too, so that they'll stay in the nest and take care of the brood.
Broods parasites who attempt to parasitize individuals without a brood are unlikely to be very successful. The same is true for fetishists; you can't effectively role-play a cuck if you're not already fucking somebody. It is a 2+1 game.
Bug. Definitely.
FB can't have people steal private information from their users. It's pretty much like stealing their source of income.
Bug, because EULA. The security-related part would only be a side door.
If you don't heart them backdooring you, don't give them the key to your side door. If you want a reach-around, you'll have to go searching in your friend list; don't expect it from Zuck.
We are hemorrhaging cash. What should we do?
Let's annoy our customers by taking away the lyrics feature!
-- Good one! What else?
Let's start requiring home addresses so we can sell their info to marketers.
-- Great! This is going to make people love us. We'll tell them we are going all Draconians on all family members have to have the same addresses. Screw their parents in the military and kids in college.
Lyrics have separate copyright issues. Spotify never provided lyrics themselves. They used to have a partnership with a company so that they could just give your metadata to that company behind the scenes, and show the lyrics in their app. But they were not the ones who licensed it. Then they ended that partnership; you can still get the exact same lyrics from the exact same company by installing both apps. The other app can show the lyrics for the song that is playing in spotify. I don't know how much it cost them, but if it was less than millions they'd have probably kept it.
They do still provide lyrics inside the app via a different company, but there is less coverage. According to the internet, you can click the "now playing" bar at the bottom of the app and get lyrics, for supported songs.
If your parents are in the military, maybe they can get a ticket for USO show, or something? If your kids are in college... yeah, they probably know how to get media. ROFL
PS: Draconians was a play on words. If you were intentionally trying to make a cultural reference, you would need to try harder to work it into the grammar. Draconians, in your favorite show, were from the planet Draconia. In your attempted reference, it would only be "going all Draconian" and the only hint would be the capitalization. You would need to change it so you say something like, "acting like a bunch of Draconians" if you wanted that word form. The standard term draconian refers to being like Draco (650-600 BCE) who was elected by the people of Athens to be their law-giver, then he surprised them with laws that were much harsher than they had expected or intended. All crimes were punishable by death, except debt (punished by slavery) and unintentional homicide, punished by exile. (yes, shoplifting and debt were worse crimes than negligent manslaughter) (all his laws other than the homicide law were repealed by Solon)
The more salient point is though is that, like most words, there is more than one known definition of "family." And they're using one of the traditional ones, such as is used in the phrase "single family home."
Here, it is synonymous with "household."
There is no ambiguity.
Also, if there was ambiguity, then nobody would be "cheating" them.
Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?
Right, if I fill out the forms for a vanity license plate, but I use trademarked terms, then I might end up losing the plate. And whatever I paid the State to give it to me.
You don't have a right to pretend your car is work vehicle from Brandybrand(TM).
Phone numbers are trickier; if there is no evidence of bad faith, and you're only using it as a number, then you can keep it. But if it spells out a trademark, and your practice is to tell people to dial that trademark to get ahold of you, you're probably going to lose the number.
Also, if you don't pay property taxes, they eventually take your property. If you want to call that "stealing," then this is the same. But be advised, you'll be unable to have fruitful discussions with people who understand how the rules work if you choose to use different words than everybody else.
Trademarks require actually conducting business activities, not just pretending to on the internet.
And the guy who calls cyber-squatters "cyber-sitters," too. Don't forget him.
News flash: They were not hired to take care of the domain while its parents went out for the evening.
Yes. But unless you're competent to represent yourself in legal matters, you'll have to hire a lawyer. And you'll have to travel to hearings and such, or the lawyer will. Either way, it will cost you a lot more than $2k.
But in the end you will win if they asked for more than recovery of their costs.
That's why, you pay the $2k, but if they make more expensive demands, you hire lawyers and take what is rightfully yours.
They would not make it to a trial, or even to discovery. They would only make it to a show cause hearing, where the judge would decide to punish their lawyer for filing the case, or just toss it out.
You have to have cause to sue somebody. If they want to take to take this to a "real" court, they need a real claim that they think they're the trademark holder. They don't have that. All they have is an extortionate demand based on trademarks they cannot and have not disputed.
This would be a different situation if they were some company who had also actually been using the trademark as a trademark! Without that part, they were on thin ice just plotting the scheme.
There is a difference though between "insider trading," as happens in the stock market, and an "inside job" which is closer to this case.
How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
If I have a Trademark, and you own the domain, and you don't turn it over to me, you're cybersquatting. That is the system in place.
If you weren't cybersquatting, your use of the domain, by definition, would preempt my trademark application. If in fact I was using the name in trade before you, then I am the one with the claim to the name. That is true if you accidentally had the same name for a non-trade use before I engaged in trade, or if, as in this case, you heard about me doing trade under the name and tried to win a race with me to register it first.
If other sports teams were using the name "Titletown" in their business communications, they should talk to their lawyers to figure out who used it first. If it was just a phrase that local TV sports anchors sometimes used casually, then no luck. Or if fans uttered it, who cares. Or if a bragging player said it unofficially, who cares?
I also use an anonymizing service for domain name stuff.
If you think that is slimy, you should see the ship that domain owners have to go through!
Heck, I even heard about some sportsball team that had people try to squat on the domain that named their major joint project, after they publicly announced the project name!
You think I'm slimy, you should see the people I'm hiding from!
No, we know that he had had a 30 minute meeting with the Saudis where they had agreed to taking Tesla private, but that the details of an offer hadn't been worked out. We don't know if particular prices were floated at that meeting, but there was no solid agreement. But get this; there could be no agreement possible, the board would have to vote to authorize the negotiation for that to happen! So since the public knew the board hadn't considered it, it is impossible to think that an agreement had been made.
We won't know what the Court makes of the word "secured" until the Court makes various rulings, and that's if there isn't some sort of settlement that prevents it from ever being ruled on. But it sounds a lot worse without context than it does if you have the context.
I had to laugh at all the Musk fanboys here saying at the time that he committed no crime. Yes he did, you can't do such things when a public company.
And yet, he still hasn't been accused of any crime!
I have to laugh at your lack of self-consistency.
And in cases where they were accused of lying and found to have done it, were they usually banned for life from working in the same field? In that normally how the SEC handles executives?
Given that they're asking the equivalent of the death penalty (it is the worst penalty they can ask for and ends the person's career) it would look pretty bad if other executives have been found to do much much worse, and weren't banned.