I'm going to assume two possibilities. One, there's more to this video than LG is putting out (if that's the case, ignore the rest of this comment). Two, the simple act of stress testing is what sparked the suit.
Over the course of the several year life span of the washer more damage is going to be done to that door than one guy should be able to do in one or two little pushes.
I think it was a reasonable stress test, but it still would be vandalizing private property. If you stress tested your friend's car and broke it, you would be responsible for the damages.
So it may have been a reasonable lawsuit, but Samsung may have done more damage to their reputation. LG probably shouldn't have even bothered trying for defamation and just made this video. Hell, they could probably make an advertising campaign out of it. "Yes we got sued and yes we lost, but we proved their stuff is not going to survive the years."
Well, he's kinda right. Title II will inspire North Korea and other dictatorship countries to censor harder.
A free and open Internet will put more and more information out there. More information might inspire citizens of not so free countries to desire some of that freedom. Citizens who want freedom are the bane of totalitarians, thus they will censor.
But something that pisses off totalitarians and inspires citizens of totalitarian governments is a good thing, isn't it?
Square Enix is doing it with Chrono Trigger and a bunch of versions of Final Fantasy.
As much as people feared the fracturing of the Android market, that's becoming less and less of a problem. Running an emulator would be even easier as it doesn't need to access special hardware. The biggest problem now is system specs, just like PC gaming.
Let's be realistic here. They don't want to spy on the public, we're not interesting enough to keep their attention. They're doing it because they're too lazy to do real detective work and for the appearance of doing something.
The problem that comes with this (and the real reason to stop it) is confirmation bias. Humans are far too damn good at finding patterns where none exist. I guaranty 100% that given enough information I can find enough coincidences to get anyone on any government watch list.
Yes, but they don't limit the no-fly zones to 15 miles around DC. I'm fairly sure it's a violation to fly over the White House. I'm fairly sure it's not a violation to fly 15 miles away from the White House.
Plus, it's not DJI's place to set these limitations. It's the FAA's place.
Is that 'responsible, professional, AND ethical' or 'responsible, professional, OR ethical'? I have a domain name for my own personal use. My IP address changes maybe twice a year and having a domain name is just easier to deal with. It is most definitely not professional and would be the exact opposite of responsible for me to publish my home address to the world. Ethics just don't play into it.
I'm going to assume that you're like one of those bad cops we always hear about. You've spent 14 years dealing with the shit of the web. So much shit that you can't see the good any more and instantly assume that anything less than your idea of perfect must also be shit.
In defense of Microsoft (what little defense there is), Windows 10 is looking like what Windows 8 was suppose to be. And that would fit since Windows 7 is what Windows Vista was suppose to be. If Microsoft has any chance at gaining back the mobile market, it will be with Windows 10.
Do I think it's going to happen? No, but it is their best chance.
Sneeje is saying that the streets in his neighborhood weren't put in by the city and thus not owned or maintained by the city. It would be like putting a driveway on your property. You're responsible for it, not the city.
Maybe the NFL isn't fighting it for a reason. It's been pointed out here many times that they're vary uptight about anyone referring to their over-sized sporting event that happens once a year. Maybe they don't fight it because if they did and won, they wouldn't gain the trademark. ESPN would lose it and then anyone could use it.
I agree with everyone that posted before (except that one AC who only posted insults).
I follow the Nerd³ philosophy of early access games: Is the game worth the money now because that's all you're guarantied to get. That's something only the person who will be playing the game can decide.
Plus, if you give an early access game (or a game that should be in early access) to someone who's not an early access kind of person, you ruin their experience of the game. I could be gifted an early access game and it would be find. But if I gave my sister an early access game, she would play it for five minutes, call it a broken mess, and probably say that to anyone who asks.