Consider this: they don't have to conclusively identify the original author. It will be good enough to find someone with similar writing (i.e. also a subversive) and charge them instead of the original perpetrator
I doubt a major news network, would ever just blindly claim the wrong person did it.
...they are too disorganized to pay some small fry,... the people who are handling your account are incompetent.
This is most likely the case. They multinational may not be able to figure out who is in charge of the original companies assests. Or perhaps the UK branch thinks the US branch owns it, but the US branch thinks the UK owns it.
It is a multinational, typically any issue is due to incompetence.
As for your story, you do know that banks don't keep that kind of money around? No matter whether they are going under or not. There is no obscure clause. I smell something fishy about the story, because he wouldn't withdraw that kind of money as a downpayement to a house. He would have transferred the money. It would have taken some time, but that is why it takes time to close on a house.
Unless the amount is SMALL, and can be paid from petty cash, or out of someone's pocket. You WILL NOT be paid before work is performed from a fortune 500 company. But, if it is a Fortune 500 company you will be paid. It might take a bit of time, but you will.
I know people don't like to read TFA... but did you even bother to read TFS? Gundotra said it was because of a tweet of his, about other companies, that went viral. Sounds like he couldn't keep his mouth shut.
It means that "Social Networking" is for the little people.
No, no it doesn't. It means that, a "big" person needs to be careful what they say to the public. And if they can't, they can't say anything to the public. This is true for any time they talk to the public. Not just "social networking"
And really that is true for anyone. Its just that for "little" people, when they say something stupid it generally only affects a small handful of people.
But it IS a good metric. The main reason I bought an kindle is because of its battery life. When I travel, I don't always get a chance to "drop it into the cradle for the night" Besides, how many times have you forgot to do that? And then you had nothing the next day?
Considering "The Lord of the Rings" was 6 books, and probably should have been at LEAST 6 movies, I don't have a problem splitting The Hobbit up (it was done before, or almost done before) 3 Movies may have been pushing it, but one movie was definitely not enough.
"Gameplay and fun are more important than graphics (therefore some advance is graphics technology is pointless or negative)",
Gameplay IS more important than graphics. A great game is fun to play pretty much no matter what the graphics are. But for a long time it seemed the studios just said "hey, lets improve the graphics, that will make the game better." It might mike a dumb game more palatable, but it is still a dumb game. A movie with a plot is horrible in B&W as well as high definition.
"3D gives everyone headaches and doesn't add anything/is a gimmick/I'm an idiot".
Dunno about 3D, but stereoscopic 3d is NOT real 3d. It leads to a dim film, ghosting of images, and doesn't ADD anything to the movie (except a higher ticket price.) It IS a gimmick.
Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.
That is a dumb request, anyone can perform any act. A person in one religion can perform both moral and immoral acts, and a person in another religion can perform the same acts. But the question is, what defines morality?
If you don't want explicit results, then turn off explicit results. Done. Or it should be that way. Now almost all searches are SFW. The problem is, what else is being filtered? Are is it just naked skin?
Actually everything has changed. A few days ago search for an unsafe topic, say boobs... You got plenty of images of naked boobs. Today turn safe search off, and search for boobs and you get a bunch of head shots and girls in bikinis. So yes, something was lost in the process.
The TURN and lock safe search on. Have it on by default. But if you turn it off, then expect to see unsafe results. Which is what you don't get today. There IS no control.
The images are still available, but you need to be use keywords that make it clear that's what you're looking for
If I have "explicit" turned on, then give me explicit results. If I have it turned off, then don't. Simple.
On google's forums people are complaining that explicit terms aren't returning explicit results. How many more keywords do you need?
There is BIG "safe search" button. You have safe results, turn it on. Simple as that.
No, they are complaining that if you turn it off, it still doesn't work.
Turn OFF safe search.
Search for something that is unsafe. Google first prompts "are you sure you want to search for something unsafe?" And the proceeds to NOT return unsafe results
Do you really think you're saving any money in the long run? When people get such discounts, the base price of everything goes up -
Yes, you are saving money. This is like saying the base price of everything goes up, because they advertised.
A company can spend a bunch of money on a commercial, or they can spend the same money on discounts. Since the company is already spending the same amount of money, the base price isn't changing, and yet I'm getting a discount.
In the context of in app purchases:
Distributing updates/purchases - Nope
Providing notification service - Nope
Making apps/updates easy to find - Nope
If you update the binary, Apple distributes the binary. And I'd argue that Apple doesn't really make anything easy to find.
But for in app purchases the publisher is required to distribute the purchase, and provide the notification, as well as making the in app update easy to find.
In addition for non recurring subscription, the onus is on the developer to figure out if the user already paid for the subscription or not.
For in App purchases, about the only thing Apple provides is credit card services... What other people charge a few percent for.
AFAIK the US Law does not state any such thing. That therefore must mean you do not have any such right, and are obliged to listen to whatever anyone has to say./sarcasm
Actually if the US Law does not state it, YOU have the right. The law isn't an enumeration of our rights, it is an enumeration of what limits our rights. If it isn't listed... Then it is our right.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you mean the Patriot Guard Riders?
Consider this: they don't have to conclusively identify the original author. It will be good enough to find someone with similar writing (i.e. also a subversive) and charge them instead of the original perpetrator
I doubt a major news network, would ever just blindly claim the wrong person did it.
...they are too disorganized to pay some small fry, ... the people who are handling your account are incompetent.
This is most likely the case. They multinational may not be able to figure out who is in charge of the original companies assests. Or perhaps the UK branch thinks the US branch owns it, but the US branch thinks the UK owns it.
It is a multinational, typically any issue is due to incompetence.
As for your story, you do know that banks don't keep that kind of money around? No matter whether they are going under or not. There is no obscure clause. I smell something fishy about the story, because he wouldn't withdraw that kind of money as a downpayement to a house. He would have transferred the money. It would have taken some time, but that is why it takes time to close on a house.
2) Get paid up front before work is performed.
Unless the amount is SMALL, and can be paid from petty cash, or out of someone's pocket. You WILL NOT be paid before work is performed from a fortune 500 company. But, if it is a Fortune 500 company you will be paid. It might take a bit of time, but you will.
Yes this is the typical answer...
But something needs to be said: the law in the U.S. is AMAZINGLY forgiving for multinational companies not fullfilling contracts to individuals.
Citation needed.
It can be difficult, but it isn't amazingly forgiving. And this is another company, not another individual.
I know people don't like to read TFA... but did you even bother to read TFS? Gundotra said it was because of a tweet of his, about other companies, that went viral. Sounds like he couldn't keep his mouth shut.
It means that "Social Networking" is for the little people.
No, no it doesn't. It means that, a "big" person needs to be careful what they say to the public. And if they can't, they can't say anything to the public. This is true for any time they talk to the public. Not just "social networking"
And really that is true for anyone. Its just that for "little" people, when they say something stupid it generally only affects a small handful of people.
Credible tweets are negative? How is "Coney Island hospital is on fire" or "don't use 911, the lines are maxed out" positive in tone?
But it IS a good metric. The main reason I bought an kindle is because of its battery life. When I travel, I don't always get a chance to "drop it into the cradle for the night" Besides, how many times have you forgot to do that? And then you had nothing the next day?
Considering "The Lord of the Rings" was 6 books, and probably should have been at LEAST 6 movies, I don't have a problem splitting The Hobbit up (it was done before, or almost done before) 3 Movies may have been pushing it, but one movie was definitely not enough.
(too real = literally not fantastic).
Heaven forbid that our movies are "too real." Isn't that the point? To be realistic?
Why is 60fps "perfect video?"
"Gameplay and fun are more important than graphics (therefore some advance is graphics technology is pointless or negative)",
Gameplay IS more important than graphics. A great game is fun to play pretty much no matter what the graphics are. But for a long time it seemed the studios just said "hey, lets improve the graphics, that will make the game better." It might mike a dumb game more palatable, but it is still a dumb game. A movie with a plot is horrible in B&W as well as high definition.
"3D gives everyone headaches and doesn't add anything/is a gimmick/I'm an idiot".
Dunno about 3D, but stereoscopic 3d is NOT real 3d. It leads to a dim film, ghosting of images, and doesn't ADD anything to the movie (except a higher ticket price.) It IS a gimmick.
there is a reason we use 24.
Yes, but it really has nothing to with how it looks. It has to do with sound, and cost.
There's the rub, isn't it? As long as you call people terrorists, you can do anything to them.
Not quite... but you can do anything if you "think of the children."
Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.
That is a dumb request, anyone can perform any act. A person in one religion can perform both moral and immoral acts, and a person in another religion can perform the same acts. But the question is, what defines morality?
If you don't want explicit results, then turn off explicit results. Done. Or it should be that way. Now almost all searches are SFW. The problem is, what else is being filtered? Are is it just naked skin?
Actually everything has changed. A few days ago search for an unsafe topic, say boobs... You got plenty of images of naked boobs. Today turn safe search off, and search for boobs and you get a bunch of head shots and girls in bikinis. So yes, something was lost in the process.
The TURN and lock safe search on. Have it on by default. But if you turn it off, then expect to see unsafe results. Which is what you don't get today. There IS no control.
The images are still available, but you need to be use keywords that make it clear that's what you're looking for
If I have "explicit" turned on, then give me explicit results. If I have it turned off, then don't. Simple.
On google's forums people are complaining that explicit terms aren't returning explicit results. How many more keywords do you need?
There is BIG "safe search" button. You have safe results, turn it on. Simple as that.
No, they are complaining that if you turn it off, it still doesn't work.
Turn OFF safe search.
Search for something that is unsafe. Google first prompts "are you sure you want to search for something unsafe?" And the proceeds to NOT return unsafe results
You CAN turn it off, it is just that Google needs to "tweak" their algorithms to allow NSFW stuff through when you have safe search turned off.
Do you really think you're saving any money in the long run? When people get such discounts, the base price of everything goes up -
Yes, you are saving money. This is like saying the base price of everything goes up, because they advertised.
A company can spend a bunch of money on a commercial, or they can spend the same money on discounts. Since the company is already spending the same amount of money, the base price isn't changing, and yet I'm getting a discount.
In the context of in app purchases: Distributing updates/purchases - Nope Providing notification service - Nope Making apps/updates easy to find - Nope If you update the binary, Apple distributes the binary. And I'd argue that Apple doesn't really make anything easy to find.
But for in app purchases the publisher is required to distribute the purchase, and provide the notification, as well as making the in app update easy to find.
In addition for non recurring subscription, the onus is on the developer to figure out if the user already paid for the subscription or not.
For in App purchases, about the only thing Apple provides is credit card services... What other people charge a few percent for.
AFAIK the US Law does not state any such thing. That therefore must mean you do not have any such right, and are obliged to listen to whatever anyone has to say. /sarcasm
Actually if the US Law does not state it, YOU have the right. The law isn't an enumeration of our rights, it is an enumeration of what limits our rights. If it isn't listed... Then it is our right.