The problem here though is no one came forward or even reported anything to police for months, in the current case before the courts, and decades for other cases. As much as you can claim someone is claiming an entitlement of the rich, it could also be said he is a target for grifters.
When a prosecutor said there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction 10 years ago and after a hung jury, the current prosecutor wants to keep pressing, this sounds more like persecution.
Bricking hardware is a good way to have your base start buying from the competition.
While very true, that is increasingly unfeasible. Many organizations are, if not using cloud based operations, using off site servers shared by several sites.
Add in the push to make apps and programs cloud/server based will only further that.
And that sucks.
Yes, I can see why you're an anonymous coward.
Some consumer services just don't lend themselves to competition. Few municipalities would tolerate two or three sets of poles delivering electricity and/or phone service. Add in the capital required to wire an area, be it phone, electricity, cable or natural gas is very high. That leaves a very strong incentive to allow monopolies AND a layer of bureaucratic regulation to protect the consumer.
The consumer is a product. Those products return profits on the company's investment. If they didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be in business. However, there is that layer of bureaucratic regulation that prevents excessive profit while insisting on a minimum level of quality.
The problem with internet service is it has come along in an era of "regulating is bad". It has also removed the concept of regulating from a local area to be protected at a Federal level. Regulating content though is a new area that is waiting to be defined. One major problem here is trying to pigeonhole the internet into one nice easy package. Remember, your terrorist may be someone's mentor. And Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist.
They trademarked "Villahe Hotels". They want to extend that to any service using the word "village" in their name.
The pub would be smart to contact their local MP and have the Village Hotels registration checked for being too broad.
They were fired for violating city policy. The union is upset that the city released photos of the (former) firefighters.
There will always those who buy into the idea that government doesn't work. Then there will be those who unfailingly accept the advertising as true.
I can pay millions for the government to supply the service or tens of millions in fees for a private business to supply the same service.
I can complain to my local politician about the government service. The private business doesn't care if I complain.
You just touched on part of the problem.
The third party software was not always compatible with MS. WordPerfect would always be problematic when opening in MS Word. MS Word wouldn't open in WordPerfect.
Lotus 123 would not open in Word or the other way.
After the Antitrust case, MS did start allowing third parties to use source code. Today, I can use Open Office with very few issues going either way with Word.
Yes, but, ...
The NYT is walking a fine line. If they go after Bois for having a conflict of interest, that may injure their relations with other contacts, including confidential informants. While I'm sure they may want to for vengeance sake, for a business sake, they won't.
Boise sounds like the type of lawyer that has already hired a lawyer to defend him before the NY State Bar.
His ethics are questionable. His conflict of interest is inexcusable.
I agree. Netflix is looking long term at the PR this establishment gives the show. The name does not injure Netflix or their show in any way as the network makes their money off of subscribers, not ad revenue. Anything that brings them subscribers is a good thing.
At some point though, I'm sure that even Netflix will want to cash in on its properties, as they have every right to. Then, they may license their IP to whomever wants to use it.
I don't think they have been criminally charged. They have been fired for cause which is a much different animal.
I'll leave it to the Prosecutor to decide if a crime exists. Yes, their actions rise to a severe violation of city policy, but I'm not so sure it is a crime. (If there was further vandalism, such as damage to a car or painting racist graffiti on his personal belongings then this would be evidence of a continuing crime. But not on its own.) see Virginia v. Black, 2003 where the SC decided that actual intimidation must be shown.
Something like this is most likely unconstitutional. If it is fine to have the Fire Chief, Police Chief, City Manager, etc. photos released, there is no reason not to allow the photos of ordinary fire fighters and police. These women and men are being paid with government funds. It is discriminatory to allow the release of some government photos but not others based solely on general qualifications.
Yes, an exception could be made in special circumstances, such as if they were working undercover or in a contract role.
Yes, since my last name is Johnson and our kids are named Steven and Joan, why can't I start a company called SJ Johnson after my kids? Or even Johnson and Johnson?
NOTE: My cousin already named his lumber and supply business Billie Joe Johnson and Son, LLC. Apparently there is a difference between selling wood and the stuff that gives you a woodie.
Swift is on the verge of alienating her fan base. Of course, 10 y/o girls do buy a lot of merchandice and a new crop pop up every year.
-"it is impossible to make any kind of chemical test that can positively identify a substance in only one test."
Breathalyzers can do a good job of measuring the relative blood/alcohol levels.
Not quite. Fair Use allows someone to use other's work for personal or informational use. What Fair Use doesn't do is allow you to profit off of other's work.
A site can use a picture of Peyton Manning to illustrate a news story. If that photo is the subject (instead of an illustration) then they will need to pay for the use.
Re: Isn't this bait and switch?
You would think, however, Finistere left the program of his own volition. By publishing the paper, he can not now claim the money.
His options earlier were to sue for the $30,000. Even if they changed the rules in the middle of the game, that was the limit of his claim. Today he can claim no reward. A smart lawyer may be able to squeeze some damages out of any law suit, but I'm not seeing it.
And you know what? That sucks. But that is what happened when we allowed the government to put in all those protections for businesses over consumers and the public.