This isn't a problem if only the politicians would remember that WE are THEIR bosses.
So yeah, we're screwed.
Hang on, the FBI just busted actual bad people? And LEOs at that!?
Where do I send the flowers? Or should I double-check my water for hallucinogens first?
I find myself wondering the same thing every time this topic comes up; are Keurig REALLY that dominant?
Shouldn't this be the end of them? If I can make an equally good product and put "accepts all pods" on it, wouldn't that sell like... well, a lot?
You are confusing two different kinds of "Early Access". The one you're thinking of is where people get to play early version of a game, often by paying (though not always).
The kind talked about here though is where reviewers get a copy of the finished game before it goes on sale. Think of it as the equivalent of having screenings of a movie for critics before it premieres.
The deal is that in order to get a review copy of the game you have to sign a deal to basically market it.
As in, to get a review copy you're not allowed to actually REVIEW it.
To me the letter sounded more like "your threats are so pathetic that you are not even worth the time it takes to school you properly, so I'll just point out that you obviously don't know the law and leave it at that".
Basically the worst insult a Klingon lawyer could give someone. ;-)
Am I the only one that found the judges name, Snell, to be really appropriate in an ironic way?
I associated Snell with the german word Schnell (would probably be pronounced very similarly), which means fast.
I think you need to be more subtle and discreet than this for that to work.
It's easier to convince someone to make you "go away" by paying you off if they can pretend like it never happened. I think. Maybe.
Perhaps they are actually preparing a PROPER lawsuit against Apple, and this is just random blustering because they didn't control their lawyer properly?
Then again; do we really know that he IS representing anyone, and not just making stuff up?
It still applies. That's the whole point, making laws so that people "they" don't like "commit the crime".
But it's not REALLY 9/11. In the rest of the world it was 11/9.
Sounds more to me like they're trying to make it so that having an encrypted phone in and of itself counts as "probable cause" or something like that.
Haven't "the public" already been punished though? Isn't the behavior of the police enough?
Sounds good. After years of litigation you MIGHT get your lawyer-fees back. Well, if he has that much money.
Please note the utter lack of punishment for doing this, all you can sue for is damages and those would be minimal.
I think that the next step for "France" if they wish to continue this "fight" would be to update the law with mandated shipping fees. Which will most likely backfire hilariously as well.
They mostly advertised their streaming offers and wondered how he slept through the crowd screaming earlier. Also some musings about the guy next to him.
But why would the kids have a user account with a CC registered to it?
I'm sorry, but I'm confused. How are the kids buying stuff? Doesn't it require a credit-card?
"We showed a map where L’Aquila is purple, which means the highest hazard"
Hang on a second here. Did they, or did they not, point out that L'Aquila was in danger? How could they have been convicted in the first place if they actually showed that map?