Be fair. "Glitch" was the word you used, which means unintended and temporary... which would indicate your suggestion of "mis-function." that's why it's a glitch. You're making an incorrect assumption.
They word they used was "erroneously" which means WRONG. Wrong can be introduced many ways.. some of them are just like you say... intentional or laziness.. they admit it's wrong, without blaming any cause, and they are going to fix it.
All that aside, I'm already tired of the stupid "game" and I've not even installed it, let alone played it.
My old apartment complex went as far to include in my lease that I could only subscribe to ONE internet provider. Served by no less than 3, I was allowed access to only the worst of the 3. My street had 2 cable providers and DSL but I had to suffer through
Can we then assert that since computers are "hacked all the time" that a computer was already hacked at that time and being used covertly for such activities as this man was accused of? If it's a blanket sweep of every violation then it stands to reason that if JUST ONE person was already hacked and being used this way they AT LEAST ONE person would be pegged unjustly for a crime they didn't commit.
I would imagine the copyright is on the photo of the artwork not a new copyright on the artwork. Taking your own photo should result in yet another new copyright. That being said... if you're restricted from taking photographs, as many museums do, you have no way to display a photo of an artwork that isn't, in some way, a violation of the photographers copyright. Very poor ruling indeed.
How long before we see accusations that an innocent city boy was able to be recruited by ISIS on free city wi-fi and now it's all the cities fault? ...because personal accountability doesn't exist any more. Shame.
Hasn't the NFL been rather aggressive in Trademark disputes themselves? Aren't TV stations using "The Big Game" because of some stupid dispute over "The Super Bowl"?? and then the NFL went as far as to try and trademark "The Big Game" as well???
Maybe Dr. Pepper is stepping in out of fear that once the NFL owns a trademark they might pursue legal actions to stop others from using it. Dr. Pepper may just be issuing a pre-emptive strike.
Let's kickstart an encryption that complies... the backdoor password for the gov will be "f*ck the gov" or "i am an asshat" and only usable on December 25th, 3199... ensuring that it will be totally useless by that time... but hey, it's a backdoor and it will provide legible data...
..this is the purest example of the give an inch take a mile theory the gov't follows daily. When someone says, "yeah, we should break all privacy laws because, you know, it's ONE terrorists cell phone.." they really get this behavior from the gov't.
Not true. Functionality has nothing to do with it. It's usability. The usability of this device ceases. Even bricked devices by the definition you infer have SOME functionality, even if it means it's just a screen that pops up the logo.
Amazon says it's published by "That Guy" and "Why should you buy this book?" in the description says "Well it is an instant collector’s item..." and apparently owning this book gives you cred for being a "true believer" in what is billed as FICTION.
The reality is that the mouse print catches our mouse balls in the mouse trap. There are no alternatives that the mouse print isn't ridiculously and overwhelmingly in favor of the provider on every aspect. Contracts, if we can call them that, offer ZERO consumer protection, are non-negotiable and bind us to things whether or not we agree. The only solution is to just not sign the contract and go without. Sure, there ARE alternatives but you are still agreeing to terms and they have you by the mouse balls too.