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?
Team Prenda's own lawyer not only seemed completely unprepared and out of his depth in the hearing, he ended up arguing that rather than just pay $250,000, his clients would prefer to face criminal charges with the chance of life in prison (though, admittedly, such a sentence would be highly unlikely).
Or possibly, having dealt with them for more than 5 minutes, he would prefer they face the criminal charges with the chance of life in prison.
Is this just an attempt to have Western media stop covering Iranian clerics? After all, if we can't say anything negative about them (even if true) there's not much left to report on.
If they want more positive representation in the media they should try not reinforcing the negative images by living up to them. Stop funding terrorists, stop encouraging radicalization, and then the media will no longer portray you as supporting terrorists and radicalization.
Lastly, there is a tiny bit of truth in his statement (much as I hate to admit it). He is correct when he points out that there are not many positive portrayals of Muslims in Western media, although he is far from the first to say this. But trying to suppress negative images won't magically create positive ones.
The article describes a key difference from 'traditional' Dyson spheres, in that it seems to state that they would be occupied on the exterior of the sphere. The previous descriptions I had seen of larger ones were occupied on the interior, and spun to simulate gravity. While this seems unstable, it's not an unsolvable problem. One other problem is that there would be no natural 'daylight' since the star would be enclosed by the sphere (and underfoot). One obvious solution to this problem would be to build the sphere around a white dwarf that was part of a binary system, so the other star would provide lighting to the surface. To astronomers, this would appear as a single star with a mysteriously large wobble, with maybe a slight possibility of an occasional transit of the sphere. A widely spaced binary would probably be preferable, with the primary being a larger, brighter star to be able to provide sufficient light at that distance. I note that there is an entire class of binary stars (Astrometric) where the secondary star can not be identified, according to space.com. Obviously not every one of these would have a Dyson sphere hiding the secondary, but it might be an interesting area to begin investigating.
Isn't there supposed to be video of the checkpoints? It seems like every other story involving airport security checkpoints has video. I would guess that the retention policy for the security videos is a few days less than the interval between the incident and when it was reported to the police. If so, could the TSA investigator be charged with obstruction and with destruction of evidence?