Right. A more accurate headline would be
Right. A more accurate headline would be
Well, it goes many ways to Sunday, but long story short this has potential uses. Just imagine if an extra on Stupid Franchise That Needs To Die VII could get it yanked if "I didn't expect a certain character to make any appearances" could be a valid argument. (Though I joke, misrepresentation of contract is legally dishonest but should have been a tort with the production team, not a DMCA claim with hosts. She should have taken it one rung up the ladder, so to speak - Google is "too late" in that process.)
This exactly. Its not that the actress doesn't have rights here, it's that the court affirmed the wrong rights. If the filmmaker materially misrepresented the film or the role in writing, that should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
Yes. Of all the plans floated so far (by either of the major parties over the past decade or more) this is the least worst.
There's a huge divide between you're wrong and you're not allowed to hold that opinion.
And you're on the wrong side.
Aha! The real reason why <> has been deprecated in favour of !=
I think a technical debunking of her claims of being hacked is ideal Slashdot material.
We don't have enough information yet. to properly analyse those claims. What I've seen written so far has been sensationalised and technically incoherent. That's reason enough to dismiss it, but not reason enough to consider it proven false.
Enough electricity to run 37 bowling alleys.
My solution is to not make up nonsensical claims in the first place.
It's not much of a solution, but it's mine.
No. More people are employed now than ever before, but most definitely not in the same jobs.
Automation is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism, or at least a version of capitalism where people are expected to "earn" their income by working.
Automation is fundamentally incompatible with some magic fairy version of capitalism where no jobs are eliminated but everyone has a better standard of living. But for those of us living in the real world, there's no incompatibility. Automation improves efficiency and so reduces cost. Yes, it shifts jobs, and yes, that causes social problems, and no, I don't have a solution for that, and nor does anyone else. But writing nonsense about it doesn't change what is real.
Ah, memories. That had us rolling on the floor at my office at the time.
For those who missed it, or want to relive it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
It's a good question. I really want a take-anywhere tablet in the 7-8" range, with 2GB RAM, at least 32GB onboard storage, micro SD support, LTE, a 1920x1200 or better display, and a stylus.
This actually has all that, but it sacrifices weight and battery life to provide terrific graphics performance - which I don't really care about at all. (I play games on Android, but mostly Kairosoft games and Final Fantasy, which are not particularly taxing.)
But it's by no means a bad device, and if Nvidia can refine it through another couple of iterations, and get it to a point where the extra graphics performance doesn't cost much in terms of weight/battery life/dollars, then they might really have something.
You are not really looking at the entire picture.
It starts with some people trying to convince Ukraine to distance itself from Russia and become more European friendly. When the elected president decides to stick with Russia, all the sudden he is a crook and needs removed from office.
Except for the minor fact that he was a crook the entire time. If you want to talk about the entire picture.
What about my right to search?
There is no such right, except in your imagination.
Freedom of association.
And quite frankly speaking, for the cases this law is intended for (let's not focus only on the abuses, as most idiot journalists do because it makes for better headlines), the right of an individual to not have their life ruined by, say, completely made-up allegations of child abuse and rape quite clearly trumps your right of finding false and misleading information.
That would be libel, and is adequately covered by existing laws. Excessively covered in the UK.