(Violynne): "Will you two shut the hell up already! Trying to watch 'Lord of the Rings' here."
(Toaster): "Says the Lord of the Onion Rings..."
In a few years we'll be hearing about Smart Scales and Smart Cars communicating, and then the car refuses to drive to fast food. Or maybe there will be a car hack that will make the car complain when overweight people get in ("Ouch!"), make grunting noises when going uphill, and ask "Ummm, we going to the gym?" at least once a day.
If the occasional tap on the brakes doesn't solve the problem, I've found that liberal use of windshield wiper fluid usually encourages them to follow at an appropriate distance. This works better when the offending car is new/sporty/freshly washed.
If I'm on a multi-lane road, I will move over to let them pass as soon as it's safe, I don't mind at all if they want to go fast and clear out any speed traps. And while I'm not the fastest driver on the road, I don't think I've ever been tailgated because I was driving below the speed limit.
For once the spokescritter speaks the truth, at least for some areas. The catch is in the phrase 'abandoning'. The accurate description for many areas should be 'abandoned' as in past tense. They are not currently abandoning DSL customers, they're already abandoned. When FiOs was installed in my area for example, DSL service was immediately degraded. It went from its normal 'somewhat usable' to 'barely usable' to 'wtf completely unusable' in about two months. They're not still abandoning DSL here, it's fully abandoned. It may be a technicality, but they'll obviously use any method they can to avoid bad and accurate publicity.
Possibly the collection consists of pictures of dominatrix midget goats combined with photoshops of Hillary's head on underage males, and every CIA operative who has tried to catalog the collection perished in the attempt.
Firstly, since the code is no longer in the original, 'pre-injected' format, could a claim be made that the currently displayed code is transformative and is subject to a fair use claim? Or are they claiming that they have copyright on their code in his web page?
Lastly, (ignoring the use of 'couple' above)
just about anyone who does a "view source" could be guilty.
or maybe even anyone who merely thinks about doing a "view source", according to paragraph above...
They're offering affected employees identity theft protection- for 18 months. Why 18 months, do they think the hackers will give the information back by then? I wonder why they weren't as concerned about protecting employees information when they were designing their IT systems. The only logic I can see behind the 18 month span is that it's likely to last until the next major breach (and another 18 month protection plan).
Suppose yesterday my child asked for a cookie, and I said only if you clean up your toys, books, clothes, and feed the fish. And I trusted them and did not check their room, despite their being a giant cable company. Then today they asked for another cookie, and claimed they should get it because of the great job they did yesterday. So I go check the room, and the toys, books, and clothes are in a giant pile on the floor and the fish is dead. Should I just slowly back out of the room, and say "No cookie today. Try again tomorrow." and let that be the end of it? No way. If there is not a memorable repercussion for misbehavior, the undesired behavior will be repeated. If the FCC is considering just backing away, and saying "No cookies this time." then they really need to work on their giant cable company parenting skills.
If there are people in Germany who still want to follow that trash, it seems like German society has failed at a much deeper and fundamental level than any copyright law or censorship can fix. Making a big deal about this book coming off of copyright will give it a power that it does not and should not have.
If it is published in any form, maybe its potential damage could be reduced by an annotated version discussing where it's wrong, the damage caused by the contents of the book, and how ideas like those in the book are best left in the past.
Do they not think that the judge will, at any point, actually look at how the two bottles to determine the validity of the claims? Would claims this blatantly false make Big Red liable for a countersuit?