I was considering getting HBO Now for John Oliver, but they arer putting his main stories up on YouTube every week. Plus they have web extras. I pay the $10/month for YouTube Red which removes the ads (and gets me access to offline and background playback on my mobile devices, as well as the Google Play music library; it's a great deal IMHO), which is cheaper than NOW and gets me access to a lot more stuff. Granted I don't have things like the Sopranos or GoT, but then I don't need those either.
Ala carte won't stop at the channel. I also pay for individual shows now and I'm much happier for it.
Which is why having a deniable encryption password would be so valuable for all systems. Despite my previous strident comment about a GFY message, the real way to implement this is to silently delete everything while the system comes up and looks like it simply does not have any data on it. Bonus points for creating some innocuous data in there so it is plausibly the real thing. What can the judge do once the system is unlocked and shows nothing of interest?
You know her staff also recognized that running her own mail server was a bad idea, told her so, and yet she did it anyway. And now here is evidence of the same thing going on with her views on encryption.
If she is going to hire smart, capable experts only to use as props and not to actually set her policy, that bodes poorly for an HRC White House.
I already wasn't going to vote for her because of this exact reason. I appreciate having more evidence reinforcing my decision.
I generally don't buy standard T's like this because I'm tall and thin, so none of the standard sizes fit very well. Not sure if there are print-to-order vendors out there that do support tall sizes, but several of the popular online clothing retailers do: Land's End, LL Bean, American Eagle, and the Gap brands (incl Old Navy and Banana Republic).
If they are going to use my billing address, a savvy consumer would choose a payment type that doesn't have a billing address or has one that can be set to any favorable location. Or they might just say screw this and go the infringement route.
I would have a bunch of domains registered like youtube-mp3.net, youtube-mp3.io, youtube-mp3.cc... you get the picture. Now start redirecting youtube-mp3.org to one of these other sites and show them a banner telling them that .org is going away soon, please update your bookmarks. Rinse, repeat.
For the Skittles analogy to work (from Vox): adhering to Trump’s analogy, a bowl with three deadly Skittles (refugees) in it would need to contain 10.93 billion Skittles. Bump calculated this to be the equivalent of 1.5 Olympic-size swimming pools full of the candy. This would equate to a bowl of Skittles roughly 246 feet long, 123 feet high, and 9 feet deep.
If DTJR wants to replace the image that was taken down, I'm sure Vox would be happy to give him permission to use theirs. Of course that would defeat the fear-mongering purpose of his original post.
Well you might need to set up your own store. I'm not sure how much control Amazon give you over these things. But you could:
1. Ban buyers who are clearly arbitragers 2. Require the shipping address to match the billing address (or other verified address) on the credit card 3. Require all shipments to addresses that are not the billing address to include a gift message that states clearly that the recipient should not have been charged any money for it.
There are probably others. This is just off the top of my head.
Any lawsuit that attempts to force anyone from taking down protected speech can be anti-SLAPPed and now they are on the hook for legal fees. I don't think the people behind this cluster-debacle really thought this through. Here's what I tweeted last night to a few that voiced support for this bill (here is the bill's sponsor as the exemplar):
@IanCalderon born October 19, 1985 (age 30) #firstamendment #sosumi #antislapp #legalfees #badpublicity #streisandeffect @sagaftra @techdirt
Sure it's plagiarism, but from my brief Google search, that isn't against the law. Maybe there is a bar complaint that could have achieved the same effect, but barring that [pun intended[ using copyright as an interim solution seems ok. Let Congress fix it if they don't like it.
Look, it's great that Snowden turned out to be a nearly impeccable character that his opponents have to resort to lies and serious distortions to discredit him. But even if the guy were a drug addict with a penchant for young boys, THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE THE *FACTS* OF THE MATTER AT HAND.
This whole report is just a pathetic attempt at redirection, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. And more to the point (which Greenwald astutely pointed out in his piece), Snowden was not the one who made this information public. If anyone should be scrutinized by the government it is the JOURNALISTS and their institutions who analyzed the information he provided and independently determined it to be newsworthy.
Fuck the oxymorons on the House Intelligence Committee. I hope the next leak FUBARs each and every one of their personal and professional lives commensurate with the bullshit our government has put all of the previous intelligence whistleblowers combined.
I admit I'm ignorant of the particulars of the Canadian "notice and notice" system, but if I worked for University of Manitoba and if it weren't explicitly forbidden, I would pass on the letter per legal obligation along with a cover letter explaining that I have to send the enclosed letter along, but it is complete BS and you should feel free to ignore it, and call our office if you have questions. Because education is the way to solve this problem.
t's easy for some people to just say "Well, don't use Facebook," but for many people that's not really an option these days...
So use Facebook for "music videos, family dinners and other experiences" and "to stay in touch with family". But is it realistic for Facebook to be a platform that is best for all things to all people? You can still share a link to the article; just not with the "obscene" image associated. And there are probably better platforms for sharing more meaningful news and information that attract the the attention of clumsy, and overly-broad censors.
Actually the people directly exploiting these children to create the images are the worst of the worst. It's no different than the drug dealers vs. the addicts, IMHO. Not to absolve the viewers, but to inject a bit of perspective here.
So now countries and organizations will resort to posting the content via anonymous 3rd party sites, and then linking to it on their official channels. Or is the IOCC going to start punishing anyone who merely *LINKS* to "unauthorized" olympic content?