Surely if the admins had evidence that rules were being broken they could just ban the people involved and thereby remove that kind of behaviour from their website?
How should they ban the people?
From what I understand, you can easily create new accounts.
And banning IP addresses can affect both other people who happen to share the same IP and not affect the user targeted because they might easily get a new IP.
or suing former companies for the exact amount her husband owes for illegal schemes
The claims against her husband seem to be from 2012. She filed the lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins in 2012.
So, you're saying that she knew a year in advance that her husband would need money and filed the lawsuit to get it? Or does she have a time machine? Or what?
This is about whether or not proprietary software is clearly identified as such. This is useful for pragmatic reasons, not just ideological..
Now, let's look at this pragmatically:
What do people want when they open the software center? They want to find software (probably do to some specific task).
And they want to know if they can download it for free or if it costs them anything.
The vast majority of people using the software center don't care about licences or source code, as they only want to use the software.
So the pragmatic solution is do make a distinction between free (as in beer) and pay-for software.
Making a distinction between closed source and open source or between limiting and less limiting licences doesn't add anything for the vast majority of users.
[...] a group of insurgents armed with little more than pickup trucks, AKs and insane levels of brutality to actually form a caliphate which Europe officially recognizes as a sovereign nation and trading partner.
Do you have any proof for this statement (that Europe recognizes ISIS)?
If not: Stop spreading such BS.
Because Uber wants to provide a taxi service in everything but the name, but doesn't want to play by the same rules as the regular taxis.
Why should Uber get special treatment? Because they're new and hip?
As if there's no public interest in limiting the number of taxis on the road.
No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.
If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
Hogwash. The supply would only be high if the demand was high. If there were too many taxis and not enough passengers, then some drivers would go home and take the day off. Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.
Nope. The taxi drivers would compete for too few passengers by trying to undercut each other, skimming on costs thus reducing the safety for passengers etc.
Free markets do work practically never on scale, as the ideal conditions necessary for a working free market are never met. There is always some imbalance.
Your username would imply you are male. Thus, you literally oppose Men's Rights groups... as a man? That's not unprecedented, as there are women who reject feminism in its many flavors, but by doing so, you're saying that there are no issues at all that men need be concerned about?
I can not talk for GP, only for myself. But you are oversimplifying the situation.
I'm a man. I'm against the mens rights groups that I know of. Not because I believe there are no problems. But because I believe that those mens rights groups I know about do their cause a disservice. Instead of pointing out rationally the existing problems, they pretty much always exaggerate, go off on tangents and generally come about as weirdos and nutters.
This, by the way, is also true for at least some of the more extreme feminists.
But there are not only extreme feminists, but also moderate one. Yet with mens rights activists there doesn't seem to be a middle ground.
Just because the Catholic Church has been taken some stupid, incorrect positions in some fields of science doesn't mean they don't care about the sciences in general.
Did nobody tell you that the GDR (German Democratic Republic, 'East Germany') ceased to exist 25 years ago?
The BND is the intelligence service of the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany, 'West Germany').
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
I guess it's true: You learn something new every day.
I stand corrected.
So.. you're from Ecuador?
Because, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Assange is not on British soil.
Maybe its time for the United States to go after a few EU companies doing business in our country. We can
certainly use the same principle of - we don't like the way you do business. Forget the law.
Except there are laws that Intel, Microsoft and (potentially) Google have broken.
And what people like you love to ignore (or, more probably, don't know, as it doesn't involve Americans): The EU judges European companies by the same standard. A few years back Gaz du France and German E.On where found to break anti-competition laws and had to pay high fines. And there are many other cases not involving American companies.
The problem is NOT that the EU is going against American companies, but that American companies sometimes don't understand that in Europe they have to play by European laws, not by the lawlessness that's the American reality.
Actually, that's not what they say. The write (quote) 'As a result, DNT will not be the default state in Windows Express Settings moving forward'.
Windows Express Settings is used by IE; sure. But it may also be used to set up Spartan.
Ah, yes, the good ol' they-do-it-so-we-have-to.
Totally ignoring the facts that you have to start somewhere, that it is best to start where you have at lease some chance at success (as slim as it may be in reality), and that this suit will likely not stop the NSA from spying outside of America so they will only lose the 'surveillance arms race' of spying on Americans.
The issue with FDE in Android has for long been the lack of combining strong passwords with a pattern lock or pin lock for unlocking the screen. In other words, your encryption key is only as strong as the pin code or password you are willing to put in every time you open your screen lock. Who wants to type in a 20+ password every time they open their screen lock?
Are you sure?
For my Android phone I activated FDE. On boot I have to enter the FDE password, which is independent from the lock screen password/pattern/face unlock.
So on boot I enter the complex password once, and later I use the less complex pattern to unlock my running phone.
My phone is Running Android 4.4.4 (Cyanogen CM11S).
Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.
