"...We’re also implementing a three-month courtesy program. That means you will not be billed for the first three times you exceed the 300 GB included in the monthly data plan."That's a bit ambiguous, no? Is it 3 months or is it the first 3 times? It'd be interesting to see if someone is charged then sues in Month 4 because of this statement.
"WaggaWagga.TV -- We're not HBO, you blithering idiots!"
WTF? This clown didn't start working for the chain until 1987. I was making Chicken Sandwiches in 1985 at Wendy's!!
Why are movie studios actively driving me away from wanting to give them my money? It is asshat moves like this that make me want to go out of my way so they don't see a dime.
Jebus christ! At least in Mexico the cops allow you to bribe them with only part of the money! You get to keep the rest.
This is fucking armed robbery!
There's probably some highschool script-kiddy running a regex call right now!
Will this require trigger warnings to Australians on all TechDirt articles containing ANY information about terrorism (such as this very article)? We don't want them to automatically lose their citizenship simply for becoming educated about their government's stupidity.
For all the the 'stupid' and 'dumb' adjectives being heaped on the Cardinal's perpetrators of this heinous 'hack' from their own home, let's add a hefty dose of 'are-you-f***ing-crazy!' to the Cardinal-turned-Astro GM who (a) put a highly sensitive database where someone outside the organization could get to it, and (b) used the SAME GODDAMN PASSWORD that he KNEW his old team was in possession!
No amount of law (CFAA or new knee-jerk-enacted ones) can make up for negligent IT practices.
to see a significant increase in 'Civil Asset Forfeiture' in 3...2...1....
(somebody's gonna pay!)
I wanted to post something with a Beavis/Butthead theme, but felt that was too obvious. So, I'll go with this regarding "Ass man" ....
Damn Autocorrect!
What does is say about a country where the government believes that 3% of it's population are pedophiles?
Won't all this popular posturing be rendered moot if TPP, with the ISDS section, is crammed down our throats?
I can see the government statement now:
"The Appeals Court ruling is meaningless. We have ruling after ruling from the true adjudicator of 215, the FISA courts, who have ruled consistently in favor of the Government's interpretation. Of course, we cannot disclose the text of those rulings .... National Security, and all that."
I can't be the only one who, upon seeing the name "Northstar", started singing ....
♫ We are the CITs so pity us!
♪ The kids are brats, the food is hideous!
....
Reading this, the same image kept flashing in my head: Simon (Bill Paxton) pleading with Helen (Jaime Lee Curtis) in 'True Lies' ...
"If not for me, Helen, do it for your country!"
But that means diddly/squat to the RIAA and the illogical 'everybody must pay', scorched-earth policy. If they squeeze a nickle out this, they look for the penny out of that.
You know who else is "facilitating access"? Web browsers!
Every single web browser can take that simple string of letters and numbers and turn it into an actual page of information, and that information infringes on somebody's copyright! And since it's by design, it's willful! The RIAA needs to eliminate web browsers to save the "artists"!
This really seems like a updating of the the Churchill quip:
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"Arcaya seems fine with being called a scum ... he just seems to not like the level of scum he's being called.
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
*scene up at end of press conference*
*reporter stands up and raises hand*
"Congressman?! Congressman?! You and your colleagues have been equating radio stations not paying artists as the artists being slaves; a position the RIAA has publicly taken as well. Given the similarities of that argument and you're presentation of it today, are you (and by extension, your colleagues) being paid by the RIAA or are you slaves to the RIAA? Congressman?! Where are you going, Congressman?!"
So if someone uses the prenomial characterization (i.e., "Idiot") followed by a proper noun (i.e., "LA Superior Court judge Mel Recana"), would that be a linguistic structure widely used to characterize people with shorthand factual information?
Asking for a friend.