"The point of GTA5 isn't to demean women; it's to demean everyone and everything."
While I am a proud player of the PS4 version, I have to say I don't like this sentence in this article. It's kinda shooting yourself in the foot. "GTA teaches you to demean women!" "No it doesn't!...it teaches you to demean EVERYONE!" ...*sound of crickets* This can be interpreted that you agree with the stated position: it teaches you to demean women, worse in fact, everyone.
I'm not saying I agree with the feminists here (far from it, I bought the game for my 14 year old sister, and she didn't suffer or change in her behavior at all), just saying that that sentence looks a bit sloppy to me.
False. The car park of that hotel is publicly accessible. Any person wishing to stay there is free to first park in it before getting a room. Even if one is not actually getting a room, they can still go there and see all the other cars - how is the hotel supposed to know that you aren't actually getting a room when you first park?
Also note that the first bit of italics on this page state that he took the photos AFTER work. I'm extremely leery of businesses attempting to dictate what their employees can and cannot say while they're off the clock.
"Just as it would be tacky and wrong for a employee to take and post pictures of a celebrity staying in their hotel,"
Your analogy fails because the employee in this article did not do anything to identify the PERSONS who drove the vehicles. He merely took a photo of a lot of DHS cars. For your analogy to work, he would have to have taken a photo of an expensive looking car (or lots of expensive looking cars) without identifying who owns them.
I have heard concerns from others that they wouldn't want Google to be their ISP, main video service, main app service and main phone service all at the same time, but surely the time to act would be if Google were to, on their ISP lines, to degrade services from other players?
So like plenty of other people have said, let's have that judge accept being surveilled without his knowledge. If he doesn't know I've somehow learned his bank account details and bank card PINs, then he's not harmed, right?
I admit, I do have my passwords in a text document. The document is itself protected by a password and is not stored on my computer. It is instead stored on an old smartphone that is permanently disconnected from Wifi and is charged by a USB cable that plugs only into a charge socket, not into a computing device. The phone itself is encrypted.
Fucking hell, anything and everything is being treated as a terrorist charge over there. I wonder what would happen if I was still in school. I remember being in Business Studies class, and being given the assignment of writing up documentation for a fictional company. My company was a fictional black market arms dealer willing to sell weapons to anybody. My teacher loved it. These guys wouldn't.
"They keep telling us that copyright infringement helps terrorists and now look - sure enough, the laws we made them pass to stop infringement are finally doing it"
Copyright will inevitably end in murder, literally. Eventually someone will get pissed off enough at a piece of content being under copyright that they want to use freely that they will murder the copyright holder and then patiently wait for 70 years before using it. /sarcmarc
"that movie producers have spoken out against as problematic."
Try the VCR. It was called the movie industry's "Boston Strangler". They campaigned quite heavily to have it banned. However, within just a few years of it being declared fully legal, it was making more money for that very same industry than the cinemas were. If the MPAA had had their way then, you would have no VCR, no LaserDisc, no CDs, no DVDs, no Blu-rays and probably wouldn't be allowed to write to our own hard drives. That or the only such storage devices wouldn't be writable by the end consumer. Read devices only is what I guess would happen.
One question I have about this article is...why ground just the one plane? Why did they make the assumption that the router broadcasting that SSID was on that one plane? Why did they not take the obviously logical precaution of stopping ALL flights at that airport? I hear you can get some decent range from 802.11n and 802.11ac equipment.
What he should do next is have a file on his phone/laptop called "Super-Duper-Secret_Evil_Plan_Bomb_White_House.txt" (no password of course) and write out a fake plan to bomb the white house (one that would never work in reality). Then at the end say something along the lines "If you've read this far and still believe that this a genuine plan to bomb the white house, and that I must be detained as a terrorist 'mastermind'...then you are just fucking hopeless".
"Now this is pure slime. If they're talking about what I believe they are, then yes, MU staff were told about the infringing files and left them on the servers. What they ever-so-conveniently left out is that MU was told to leave the files there, because they were evidence in another case."
and antidirt has the balls to whine about "regurgitating arguments without any skepticism as to their validity"...
Can you provide citations for that about Xbox? And which Xbox are you talking about? Original, 360 or One (or some or all of them?) Just to clarify, do you understand what this video is talking about, that if the owner of the physical Wii U machine doesn't accept the new EULA terms, the machine is effectively useless to him (since he more than likely cannot reprogram or install an alternative operating system; such an action may be viewed by Nintendo as circumvention of DRM, which is a no-no in the DMCA)