I've almost given up on debunking conspiracy theories. Those who believe in them, BELIEVE in them. It's like trying to debunk somebody's religion.
I find they eventually come around to "you're part of the conspiracy..."
nVidia clearly wants to distract attention from the true flaw - shadows. Everyone knows there are no shadows in a vacuum.
Maybe this should be posted in alt.folklore.urban?
After all, trolling
Wouldn't limiting the transfer of funds, via signed contracts or something, limit the risks of such a thing happening?
Possibly, and it is how most non-kickstarter projects are funded. the problem is not in how funding is done, however; it is in KS desire to assume zero liability for failed projects. If they start deciding if a project deserves more funding then they open themselves up to lawsuits when the project failed. By taking a clear hands off approach they protect themselves while still getting their cut. A start would be for them to refund their 5% cut of the raised funds for failed projects.
They seemed to imply it's an Italian thing but I've been to Italy and I'm pretty sure they had ice there.
Maybe it melted on the trip when they tried to import it
It is not really extra effort. He stops paying until he is informed of her current address, at which point he serves her the papers. If he never receives her address, he never makes another payment and no further court action occurs.
There are a few problems with that approach. First, there are already means in place to serve notice when a current address is not known; this erely move stat into the digital age. While there are problems with this approach it's no worse than requiring a notice in newspaper at the last known address; i'd argue in some ways it's better since there is at least some reason to believe the account is active and tis may see the notice. Secondly, suspending payments would not necessarily end his obligation to pay and thus he needs a court order ending the liability for payments. Absent that a court could order him to make the back payments.
Of course, with the ruling I suggested in hand, he might also have a basis for requesting a court order to freeze the account in question, since the address on the account is not that of the registered account holder.
Even so, the person has not been served and thus might be able to fight any legal cation on that basis, leaving him still on the hook for payments up to a final decision. As for freezing the account because oaf a bad address banks have plenty of accounts with bad addresses and all that happens is eventually the state gets the money.
Even if he cannot obtain a court order, he can possibly make the bank uncomfortable enough about the account that they report it to the appropriate government agency for investigation as a "suspicious account" under various anti-money laundering laws.
I doubt a bank, let alone a law enforcement agency, would get worked up over a few hundred dollars being sent to an account with a bad address. Even so, a call to the person making the deposits would reveal they are court order child support an thus case closed.
The gentleman in question was going to court to end the court order requiring him to pay child support payments for his now 21 year old son. It seems to me that a better solution would have been for the judge to issue an order to the provide the address for the account where the child support payments were being deposited. Followed up by an order suspending the payments if the ex-wife was not at that address until such a time as an actual address was found (the logic being that if the address the account was registered at was not at that address, then there was reason to believe that the account was actually being used by someone else). Confirmation of the correct account being found would come in the form of the court papers being served. Further the court could have ruled that the suspended child support payments would only be due if the court found in the ex-wife's favor on the petition which the man had made.
True, but that's a lot of extra effort and drags out the process or very little gain. He had already exhausted all reasonable efforts to serve her, and given she was active on Facebook allowing her to be served in that manner was reasonable. It seems to me she was trying to avoid a subpoena so the judge needed another way to serve her with some assurances she would get the notice. The judge could then stop the payments if she failed to appear; and once she noticed she wasn't getting the money could go back to court.
You get logs on the Mac and plenty of diagnostic tools including dtrace. If the phone is broken you take it back to apple and they give you a new one, but there are diagnostic logs on that too that you can get off it.
Sounds like you're a typical nerd who gets asked to support apple gear and you're out of your depth, so just say "it's crap" because you don't understand it.
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.
