Great, it's the Hamiltonian fanboy again.
Who's the "Hamiltonian" that get's referenced here at TD?
All text ads with no scripting, images etc are generally safe. Anything else is a security risk.Curious: how many exploits can be done with scripting but without plugins?
If the Government is horrible at keeping secrets, why in the world would we put them in charge of our privacy?Privacy rules aren't about preventing the leaks or theft of data (irregular events that organizations don't intentionally cause and don't want to happen), but about restricting what can be done with data (regular processes that organizations do intentionally cause and do want to happen). So skills a privacy aren't logically connected to skills at keeping secrets.
Back when the Clinton administration was pushing mandated back-doors they wanted to exclude bankers as well as the government.Could you provide a reference for this, or at least some keywords to search for? My Google-fu has been unable to turn up anything.
Legally speaking, Ayyadurai's claim that he is the inventor of email is an opinion based on cited facts.What about calling Ayyadurai a liar/fraud? Is calling someone a liar/fraud because of an opinion based on cited facts defamatory? Or is it itself an opinion based on cited facts?
Someone should submit a FOIA request for documents about why no one would admit the identity of the current director.
Does anyone have any details on the German law banning "fake news"? Does it fine/imprison end user who link to or repeat news judged to be fake? Merely require that the social media platform black URLs to articles deemed to be fake? What?
Wouldn't that require putting the filter into the network card/adapter?
...
Oh, wait, the Senator didn't think about things like that. Nevermind.
If the intent is to protect paper magazines and newspapers against encroachment by the Internet, then they're doing it a roundabout manner.
Having only have read his first tweet, I thought Woods was trying to deceive people into thinking that the John Doe had realized the futility of his fight, had given up and was waiting for Woods to steam-roller him. But in reality it's worse that that. Ugh.
1) If the sentence before is the problem, that's what the complaint should mention.
2) If that previous sentence is defamatory, it's defamatory against Donald Trump, not Melania, as the story neither states nor implies that Melania was complicit with what Trump did.
When it comes to right of publicity claims, does the truth or falsity of the defendant's statements have any bearing?
They already "came after you personally" as in criticize/condemn you for your comments, or as in sue (or threaten to sue) you?
Even if one were to believe their objections, why not just redact the model numbers and device quantities?
So, once again, we have a major Hollywood entertainment entity -- which has been insisting for years that Google and others should "just know" when something is infringing and take it down and block all future infringements -- who can't even properly identify the content that it's claiming to hold the copyright over.No, see, they spend the minimum amount of money possible to create the bots, so naturally the bots get made by incompetent programmers. But Google has a bunch of super-genius programmers who can do anything.
I had thought this was a genuine issue of attorney/client communication. I'd never have dreamed that someone would try to claim that their lawyer reviewing a document transforms it into attorney/client communication.
Time after time their methods and "invented" tests could not survive a Daubert challenge were it not for the FBIs ability to force publication in journals.Wait, what?
Re: Re: Re: I support journalism