I have a Nissan Altima and the key is a fob with a key that inserts into it. The ignition is a push start so you only need the fob to start it. Inside the glove box there is a button that disables the trunk releases so when you flip that switch the button on the dash, button on the fob, and proximity button on the trunk itself are disabled. Then you lock the glove box and backseat release button with the physical key.
You take the key with you and give them the fob. They can drive the car, but cannot open the glove box or the trunk without using force and causing damage to the car.
If you were to spit on someone today you could very well be charged with assault. If you spit at one person, but some of it got on someone else then that person could also file assault charges against you.
Re: Re: "Sunk (or fixed) costs" make individual channels expensive.
I felt the same way back when I used to actually have cable service. I had the basic cable service because I didn't watch any of the channels on the "premium digital" tier. One of the channels I watched on basic was G4, but then one day it just wasn't there anymore. I check the cable channel listings and found it was moved to the premium lineup. I called to see if I could get it by itself and they wanted me to get the premium tier. They lost at least one viewer that day because no channel is worth going up to a whole new package just to watch it.
I don't need 5 ESPNs or CSPANs so why pay for something I'm not using. Cable companies should still be able to offer at least an à la carte bundle. Don't want to just charge for one or two channels? Have a package of 10, 20, or 30 channels and let customers pick what channels they get. After that, THEN allow individual channels to be added at an additional rate.
If you haven't read the comments on that BS site I would suggest doing so. Basically this guy's main argument is that he believes Google records everything "seen" through the camera of GG and stores it all on their servers. He says that anything you do with GG no matter which app is being used will have it's data sent to Google where it is stored forever. He also seems to think the camera on the GG is always on and recording / streaming online back to Google no matter what else you are doing.
Someone brought up the point that you can do the same stuff with a cell phone, but his reply was that the form factor discouraged it's use. So in other words he feels that the only thing keeping people from recording video and taking pictures of everyone around them at all times is the thought that someone may know they are doing it. Wearing GG could hide the fact you were recording and more people would do it.
Personally recording video and taking pictures isn't the main function that I care about with GG and I would have no reason to go around town recording video of everyone at random. When I'm out in public and decide to record video of whatever, I don't care if someone knows I'm recording. If I'm recording video of someone/something or taking pictures I'm doing it for a reason and not just to do it. It's perfectly legal to record video/audio and take photos in public.
One of my favorite comments on the site is from a guy who points out the irony of it. The creator is so concerned with Google tracking and storing user information, but creates the page on wordpress.com and cannot disable google tracking.
Any time you get a game via PS+ there is a disclaimer that states you are getting the game for free / at a reduced cost so long as your subscription is valid. The games have a date stamped on them that you can see by looking at the game information from the XMB. If your subscription lapses the only way to play the games acquired via PS+ is to either pay for the full price of the game if it was free, pay the difference in price if it was discounted, or renew the subscription. If you renew after it expires then some of the games require you do download the unlock file again.
This is so people don't just get a month of PS+, get a lot of free games, and then not renew thinking they can just keep all the freebies. Even if they cancel the service later on (which is doubtful since its a key service for the PS4) if I REALLY want the titles I've downloaded I will just pay for it.
From a reply I made below, "If a caller in a one-party state [me in Texas] records a conversation with someone in a two-party state [someone in California] that caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (Cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)"
Federal law states that only one party needs to know the call is being recorded, but according to the information from that case it does not supersede state laws.
So it would be considered wise to announce the call is being recorded when you don't know where the caller is located just to CYA.
Personally it also comes down to who actually knows I'm recording the call. If I'm recording it for my own benefit then I may not mention it to anyone. If it's something I plan on using later for one reason or another I will say something at the beginning.
1)It is my understanding that you would fall under the law of whatever state you are making the call from.
2)"If a caller in a one-party state [me in Texas] records a conversation with someone in a two-party state [you in Florida] that caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (Cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)"
3)You would need to get my consent to record anyway since you would be calling from a two-party state. If I wanted to record it (even though you were the one calling me) I would still refer to the answer to #2. If I knew you were calling from Florida I would probably need to announce I was going to record it, but I'm not sure it could be held against me if I recorded it not ever knowing where you were calling from.
I found this on dmlp.org and it pretty much sums it all up. (Digital Media Law Project http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations):
"Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call. For example, if you and the person you are recording are in different states, then it is difficult to say in advance whether federal or state law applies, and if state law applies which of the two (or more) relevant state laws will control the situation. Therefore, if you record a phone call with participants in more than one state, it is best to play it safe and get the consent of all parties. However, when you and the person you are recording are both located in the same state, then you can rely with greater certainty on the law of that state. In some states, this will mean that you can record with the consent of one party to the communication. In others, you will still need to get everyone's consent."
"Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d))"
So, as stated it would be considered wise to announce the call is being recorded when you don't know where the caller is located just to CYA. If I know the other person is calling from a one-party state (especially Texas) I don't say anything about it.
In Texas only one person has to consent for the call to be recorded. Someone can record your call with them and not actually have to tell you. They know it's being recorded and that is all that is required. Same goes the other way around. I record all of my calls on my cell phone that are to / from numbers that aren't in my contact list. I know the calls are being recorded so I don't have to tell the other person.
Also a 3rd party can record your conversation with someone else so long as at least one of the parties on the call know it's being recorded and consent to it.
dude, you need to read up on the castle doctrine and stand your ground law. I too live in Texas and a cop will not tell you that "you're in the right if you feel threatened". http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm
"A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." It goes on to say that "the actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:", and then it lists some scenarios.
In Texas (and any other state with the same law) that part is where this troll would not be able to use it as a defense were he to shoot and kill the guy for coming on to his property. The belief that the force was necessary is only reasonable if the actor "did not provoke the person against whom the force was used".
The trolling was the provocation. The law provides Civil Immunity, but that's only if the force used was deemed justified.
I use data on my phone which I have an unlimited plan, but my wife does not. She is a stay at home mom and told me she didn't need a data plan. When I upgraded my xperia x10 to a galaxy s 2 I gave her the x10. I disabled the mobile data when I gave it to her so there could be no accidental data usage.
About three months after she had been using it she found she couldn't send any MMS messages. I saw that the APN wasn't setup correctly so I fixed it and about an hour later I get an email from AT&T stating they noticed her line was using a smartphone and didn't have a data plan so they went ahead and added the 3GB plan. It is worded like they are doing you a favor by adding something that isn't wanted or needed.
I called them and told them to take it off. The woman I talked to insisted that because my wife was using a smartphone that it had to have a data plan. I told her that I had a smartphone exclusion on the line as it was a phone I replaced her old phone with and the data was disabled. She again told me it needed to have a data plan and said that if I didn't want it added again I would have to have data disabled on the line. I had to explain how I disabled the mobile data connection on the phone and even why disabling it on the account wasn't an option. If you disable data on the account itself you cannot send / receive MMS messages.
You don't notice it and it doesn't count against your usage, but MMS uses data. One of times after this that they added data automatically and I had to get it removed was because of the MMS. Through a fault on the side of AT&T I was getting a $2 charge on my wife's line almost every month for less than 500k of data transmitted by MMS. They refused to believe it was their fault and insisted that my wife was using mobile data despite the fact that I had it disabled. It wasn't until the third time THAT happened that I told them to open an internal investigation, and if it happened again I was going to take legal action. I also told them that if they added data to my wife's line again without my consent that I would take action on that too.
I got a call about a week after the last incident with a "technician" telling me it was an issue on their end. Neither issue has happened since. I still check my bill each month to make sure they aren't slipping anything extra in hoping I won't notice.
As a few others have stated, this is nothing new at all and sites like this really shouldn't be acting like it is. This is the third tech blog site I've read about this on and each one is talking about how dropbox is going the way of megaupload because of this.
I've been using DB for a few years now and you've always been able to do what is being done now with files in the Public folder. Even video files in the Public folder could be streamed from the public download link if you have the right video player installed for that file. The only thing this adds is the ability to link any file from any folder, puts them in a nice little viewing page, and gives you a "Download" button and a "Add to my Dropbox" button.
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.