With everyone saying people should not serve someone that is already drunk, I completely agree, but what about someone buying drinks for other people? What if you have a group of 5 people and the one buying drinks for other people is the one not drinking? What if, in that group, there is a different person each time going up to buy drinks and each one gets the drinks from different bartenders? How are they going to keep track of how much each person has had to drink?
I don't think the bars should be held instantly liable for someone getting drunk at their bar and then getting into an accident because they decided to drive. The bar employees should probably be questioned and then held liable if they served the person past the point of inebriation.
Here's another "what if". What if a person meets some friends at a bar and they get this person drunk. The bartenders don't know this person is drunk enough to cause themselves harm (multiple bartenders on a very busy night) and the person even leaves the bar with the group. Once outside that person decides they are not going with the others and gets in their own car to leave. The shitty "friends" let this person drive off only to get into an accident later. How could someone say the bar is responsible for that accident?
Adam G, that would all really depend on what kind of employment agreement was signed between the employee and his/her company. At my previous job I was a field service technician that handled clients personally. Each technician had our own clients and one of the agreements I had to sign when I started stated that if I left the company I was not allowed to solicit those clients if I was working in a similar job somewhere else.
If I had been using twitter/facebook/etc at the time for work purposes, I wouldn't have to "give up" those followers, but I wouldn't be able to perform any kind of work for those individuals if it was related to what I did for that company while employed there. I guess I would've been able to do the work for free, but why would anyone want to do that lol. Hell I could've done the work and been paid for it, but I would've run the risk of getting sued by my former employer.
If anything else, I would just notify the followers that I would be leaving the company, setup another account, and tell them to follow me there if they still wanted to.....then delete the one associated with the company to make sure no one else could capitalize on all the effort I had put into it to that point :D
I'm curious if anyone here actually read the source article (including Mike). From what I got out of reading it, this "rootkit" as it was put, it to enable Sony to be able to check your system to see if you're running custom firmware prior to connecting to the PSN. They even point out in the article that it's the same method Microsoft uses to id modded consoles so they can ban their MAC address.
I'm all for hacking and modding, but you have to understand there are consequences to doing so with a console like this. I modded my original xbox so I could install emulators on it and copy my games to the hard drive for faster loading. I never got online with it so it didn't matter to me. Now, I don't see a need to mod my PS3 since the benefit to me outweighs the consequence. I don't like that Sony is able to execute this code each time I connect, but if all it's doing is making sure I don't have a modded console I'm fine with it. The first time I notice stuff missing from my system (including files stored on the drive), THAT's when I'll have a problem with it.
Um...You're not exactly correct there. People in the wrong try to sue the person with the least chance of defense. They probably thought that suing the editor directly he would change his mind, but he's not. They probably didn't think he would be able to have adequate defense attorneys and figured he'd cave before anything really happened. If they really knew they could win this at the beginning they would have sued the paper and not the editor personally.
Also not taking warranty returns because your manager told you not to is VERY different from shooting someone because they told you to do it. If it's a documented policy that you take warranty returns and you are told not to by your manager you would have to just be an idiot not to take those returns without getting that instruction in writing. Otherwise you could just lose your job when the boss says they never told you not to take the returns. You can refuse the order and if you get fired for it you can sue the company because you were following policy and the boss told you to violate it. If they tell you to shoot someone and you do it, it's ALL on you unless the boss was holding a gun to your head when they told you to do it.
Now about the story, this man has no grounds to sue the editor or anyone for that matter. The article was published back in 2006 and the son died last year in June. Four years have past since the article was published, and you can't ask someone to remove it because you don't like how it depicts your son who is now dead. Just because they don't like what their son did and don't like how it made him look, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like many others, I had no idea who he was until I saw this article. If you do a google search now for the son's name, the first few pages are nothing but other sites talking about the lawsuit and the article from 2006. From reading some of the content on the sites talking about this I was given the impression that the son was the kind of guy that gave the outward appearance of being this nice perfect son/student, but when with his equally as douchebag friends he was probably an asshole. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it still doesn't change the fact that he did what he did at that strip club.
The parents screwed up and now they have to deal with everyone knowing about not only the 2006 article, but now the ones about their ridiculous lawsuit.
It looks like you and maybe one other poster have actually done research on this. I was looking into 3D printers a while back for my own needs and found pretty much what you did. They are hella expensive. Z Corp was the company I was looking at that makes some of the printers. It's funny, I got an email the other day with a subject along the lines of "finally an affordable desktop 3D printing solution", and the funny part was that they called a $30k printer affordable. Maybe in the 3D printing industry it's affordable, but that's the only way it could be seen as such.
There was a guy that worked with Blizzard in order to get data from their servers on character models so people could order a miniature statue of their character. He got the 3D data of characters belonging to customers who ordered one and used that data with his 3D printer to make the statues. They sold for $99 each and there was so much demand that he had a serious backlog of orders. People will use 3D printers to make things no one else is making, to prototype products, and test part designs. I don't see the technology becoming affordable for everyday consumer use, or becoming large enough to "print" a house.
Maybe she DID know how to set the password and chose not to. Maybe she did this all in an attempt to get money. She could have at least suspected that they would look through her phone if confiscated, took the picture and left it on the phone making sure not to actually send it to anyone, used the phone when she knew she was not supposed to just to get it taken away, and then let the dominoes fall. The worst that could have happened had the pics not been found was that she got her phone back and did the suspension. Best case scenario would be exactly what happened. Someone found the pictures, made a big deal about it, and she got a payout large enough for either a really nice car, or some college tuition.
Makes me wish I was back in high school with the tech out today.
I think this data is worthless as so many others have said. It was gathered by Speedtest.net which means that people have to be going to the site and running tests for them to get data. If you don't test your connection, they don't have data. Maybe it's just the people in the US with slower internet speeds checking to see just how slow theirs are, or to check on connection issues. That's the only reason I use the site is for speed related issues.
Everyone knows that a lot of the major cable companies that provide high speed internet have issues with throttling the connection. Hell I personally know that if you are connecting to the internet with Charter through a wireless router that is not theirs, they throttle the internet speed. They push their own wireless router/modem combo device and won't even give you support if you have trouble with speeds through your own router. They say that they can't tell if you're connecting through a wireless router or straight through to the modem which is total BS. A laptop/desktop NIC's MAC address is formatted differently than a router which is routers let you clone your system's MAC address to it.
If I connect to speedtest.net while connected straight into the modem I get about a 24MB download speed. Going through my router (or any other router besides charter's) I get anywhere between 9mb and 16mb down.
Besides all of this, who cares how fast Korea's internet is if you can't even do what you want to do on it. I'd rather have MY internet with access to youtube and any other site I want, than have their internet with access only to what they think is ok.
They don't want you bringing in your own food for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that they make almost no money on the ticket prices. They make the majority of their revenue on concessions. I used to work at a Rave Motion Pictures theater as a supervisor and a projectionist. I was told that for a $9 ticket they maybe get $0.30 of it. Ever wonder why you're not allowed to uses passes or discount tickets for the first two weeks of a movie release? It's because the theater has to make back what they paid to show the movie in the first place, and then provide a profit to the movie company that provided the film.
The Rave theaters are pretty good, but could be better and are only getting worse. I was one of the first employees of the one I worked at and it was the best theater I had been to in a long time. The two biggest theaters in it were 400 seats, thick cushioned chairs with padded arm rests, tiered seating (never staring at the back of someone's head), and at least 2+ feet of leg room. The concession prices weren't that bad with combos and free refills on the large drinks and popcorn. They used hot cheese on the nachos and took zero shortcuts with any of the food. Now...it's a different story. They raised the ticket prices without giving anything "extra" to justify the price raise. They stopped using fresh, hot cheese on the nachos in favor or pre-packaged cheese cups which makes a huge difference if you love your nachos. They started to sell pizza slices and other foods like chicken strips which are really no more than very over priced quick cooked finger foods that suck. I gave those a shot and was very disappointed. The employees aren't that great anymore and the ushers don't really try to keep "disturbances" down during movies.
When I worked there I cared about my job and making sure people enjoyed their movie, which meant that I made sure people causing problems were promptly kicked out. Anyone under 17 without an adult in an R rated movie was kicked out. People don't understand that theaters get fined for that. They also get fined if someone pirates a movie in one of their theaters. They have "signatures" in the movie that are detectable even in a video recorded version that identify where the movie was recorded. This is why if you come in with a backpack you are probably going to be thoroughly searched.
I haven't been to a RMP theater in a long time because I now go to the Movie Tavern chain that's around here. The particular one I go to was made from an older theater so it's not as fancy as the newest ones, but it's still pretty damn good. The evening movie tickets were $6, but when they added all digital projectors they raised it to $7 which is still pretty good. You have a bar in front of your seats in the theater to set your food/drinks/feet on during the movie. You can order your food before going into the theater and they bring it to you. For just a little more money you can go to one of the newer Movie Taverns and be seated in nice big leather seats, have someone come to your seat to take your order, and even call someone during the movie (via call button at your seat) to come take your order if you want something else so you don't even have to get up. The only time I really drink there though is when I'm with a group of friends since they have a discounted price on a 5 bottle bucket of beer lol
Oh and after 6pm there is NO one under 17 allowed in the theater without a parent. Ids are checked and it's enforced as well.
Even if a movie was on DVD I would still end up going to at least a Movie Tavern to see it. The ticket prices aren't bad at all and the food is worth it's price too. Plus, I don't have to worry about making any of the food myself :D
You probably should have found out what a freetard was before making yourself sound like an idiot by asking them to print a retraction. If you need some help finding out what it is, I'll help you out a bit. http://tinyurl.com/27sd66u
@aguywhoneedstenbucks I was actually going to post this until I saw you already did. I noticed this a while back when I got directions from Texas to Hawaii. I just did directions from Anchorage Alaska to Honolulu Hawaii. You apparently can't leave from anywhere but Washington state to kayak across the pacific. At least that's what Google says it the best route.
You can't blame Google for your own stupidity. I don't think it would be too safe to kayak from Washington to Hawaii so I wouldn't do it. Just like how I wouldn't cross a street that Google told me to if I didn't think it was safe.
@Any Mouse,...That is the most fail example I've seen so far. Lets fix it shall we. They would have NO right to come to your home and do that if you had no prior knowledge of it and gave no consent. Now what you said would only be true if say, on the menu it said by eating the food served here you agree to forfeit said box of twinkies, and all future boxes thereafter. At that point all you would have to do is eat the food and they would be able to do what you stated.
If it is not disclosed to the consumer prior to accepting goods/services, then they have no right to hold you to it as you did not agree to anything prior to purchase. Why do you think hospitals require all of their paperwork to be signed before they do anything? Consent/agreement must be given before hand. Had the Xbox360 box had something like "Only compatible with Microsoft branded memory cards", then that would be a different story. The thing here though is that the consumer does not know that until AFTER they have paid for the product and opened the box.
Someone said you can just return it if you don't like the terms, but that's not entirely true. I have gone to some stores that will NOT let you return even the system if it has been opened.
Regarding the comment someone made about Sony & the PS3, you gave permission to add/remove features when you agreed to the Playstation Network TOS. You can own the system and choose not to agree to the PSN TOS, but there is a lot you will end up not being able to do with your system. No free online gaming, system updates, game data updates, trophies, and anything else you have to use the PSN for. The part about removing the OtherOS function starting legal issues is because a lot of people bought the system just for that. It said right on the box that it was a feature of the system. I installed linux on it, but never really got it running right and just didn't feel like messing with it, so it wasn't a big deal to me.
For the most part I will buy 3rd party accessories over 1st party since they tend to cost less and offer more. That sort of thing is what should drive Microsoft to make what they have better so people would WANT to buy their stuff instead of 3rd party. Forcing them to do so only makes them look worse than they already do.
IP can't id a user, but the ISP can use it to id the owner of the account
We actually had a guy at WORK download 2012 over our company network. I guess he thought he got away with it until our ISP sent in a letter they got from a tracking company hired by the movie company to track their "works" in file sharing sites/communities. They basically report to the ISP that a work belonging to their client was downloaded and they include the ip address of the user from the tracker on the file. Then the ISP checks to see who the ip address was registered to at the time of the download and sends them an email basically just saying "stop it", delete the file(s) if you still have them, and don't do it again. As soon as our network services group got the email, they knew who the user was and went right to him. Home users wouldn't be much different. I had a friend that downloaded "GI Joe" (Paramount) and got an email a month later from his ISP. His email address was the one on the bill so he got the email from his ISP. Nothing else was done/said about it and he had actually already deleted the movie cuz he said it was crap. lol I was going to download it too, but after he told me about the email (and the movie being crap) I decided not to.
Obvious troll is obvious...O_O This is like the third or fourth article today I've seen this crap on. We should be able to do like engadget and downrank the post into oblivion, or at least report it as spam.
I find it funny that they pulled out of a deal with a show who could've gotten them business with a key demographic. I'm thinking the same thing as "Weasley Misfit" with how they probably didn't see any humor in what Family Guy was going to do. To restate Mike's point, whoever made the deal probably just looked at the demographics and ratings for Family Guy and had probably never even seen the show. I was honesly surprised that MS would do a show with Family Guy.