For a company like Greyhound those would be considered fixed assets and would be depreciated according to a depreciation schedule.
FYI if the assets aren't in service they wouldn't be depreciated. Only once they are put in service is depreciation started.
I tried that with an HDHomeRun. I wanted to get some DVR software running on my computer, but couldn't get it to work right.
Then again, we subscribe to Hulu which acts like a DVR for us anyway, so it wasn't a high priority for me to get working.
People think that downloading is legal because people don't get prosecuted for it. The truth of the matter is that downloading is hard to prosecute. The MPAA would need to either operate a honeypot or get access to a torrent server's log files to get a list of IP addresses. Then - for each one - they'd need to get a court to agree that the ISP needs to turn over the information. Finally, they would sue the individual. However, all of this effort would likely be for a single count of copyright infringement. ("He downloaded this ONE movie and that's it.") It's a waste of the MPAA's resources and even they know it.
Thus, they go after the uploaders. Not only do you get multiple counts of infringement for one individual ("he shared a thousand files") but removing the large uploaders leaves the downloaders with nothing to download. (In theory.)
The big trouble downloaders get into is when they don't realize that their software is uploading as well. They think that they're invisible when, in reality, they're telling everyone what they're up to.
They weren't hosting him for free, there's no such thing as free.
They were hosting him because it was good PR for them to be able to say "Yeah, we're capable of holding up this high value target's website just fine regardless of all the attacks he regularly comes under".
This is a tacit admittance that Akamai's business model has changed from high end bulletproof host to just another host that will not keep your site up in the face of a DDOS. This is rather unfortunate for them, because such low end hosts are widely available, and at a far lower price point.
I wish them luck with their new model as just another host chasing the low hanging fruit. They've sacrificed an incredibly important unique selling point for them - their reputation as a host that will keep you going no matter what.
So basically don't trust Akamai because apparently they're incapable of dealing with DDOS attacks.
Seriously, if they can take a blog offline, then who the fuck would trust anything of actual commercial value on Akamai's network ever again?
I'd say a good level of technological advancement is knowing that GTA V is based in a mythical Los Santos, and not in San Andreas which featured in a GTA game released way back in 2004.
That would have been where I would have turned had Lenovo not cancelled my order and refunded the money.
I was in the market for a new laptop a few years back. Lenovo had a good deal so I ordered it. They said the laptop would be ready to ship in 2 weeks. A day or so before the 2 week mark, they told me it would be delayed to 2 months. To ship it, mind you. It would take an additional week to actually get the laptop.
I called for an explanation and all they would say was that they were waiting on a shipment of some part. (They wouldn't say what part - just that it was a part.) I said I wanted to cancel the order, but they insisted I couldn't cancel it outright but could request to cancel the order. However, if the laptop shipped before the cancellation request was processed, they told me, I'd be charged for the laptop. I had them submit the form to cancel and ordered a Toshiba.
Luckily, they actually cancelled my order. Meanwhile, my Toshiba laptop was assembled, shipped, and arrived in under 2 weeks - before Lenovo cancelled the order and way before they claimed they would have shipped the laptop. I'd highly recommend steering clear of Lenovo.
Not that I'm defending him, but there are some issues with your points, particularly context is important.
Part the reason you have to understand why someone might think the UK is safer than Sweden is because it was at a point at which public distaste for the UK's extradition treaty was at an all time high over cases such as the McKinnon case, extradition of Assange would've tipped it over the edge and have gotten the British public to force the whole treaty to be torn up. I suspect he saw a lot of political merit in trying to force that.
He went to Sweden I believe before he thought there was a threat of extradition to the US, the charges against him were raised, then dropped and he was told he was free to leave the country, at which point he went to the UK (in large part because he had a lot of high profile celebrity friends here). The charges were then raised again in Sweden after he'd been told he was free to live.
So whilst I'm not really disputing the rest of it, the questions you raise are easily answered in the context of the case at the time.
Interesting to hear this as I nearly bought the Hero 4 black for taking footage whilst diving, but was warned off it by numerous people saying that in the housing the thing just overheated and shutdown within about 10 minutes.
Sure enough, hundreds of complaints about this online. I ended up buying the Hero 4 silver which has been a fantastic piece of kit and I can't complain at all about it, but I still to this day can't for the life of me understand why the Hero 4 black was even allowed to stay on sale given that it was basically faulty out the box in that it would fail quickly in the housing it was shipped with.
I'd never buy a new GoPro release now if they're willing to ship something so fundamentally broken on release and keep it on sale for years after their tech support are admitting to people that that's just how it is. This is a real shame because their working kit is really impressive.
Waze runs fine in the background, downloads run fine in the background, Spotify runs fine in the background
"First this is an American website, the correct spelling is favor."
Just because you're a nation of illiterates doesn't mean you have to bring everyone else down to your level. I'll stick with the actual international English spelling thanks. Last I checked there was no stars and stripes flying over the site's banner, nor any rules that claim we have to conform to American English, or in fact, English at all.
"Second, this kid probably would be found guilty of theft of services but that is only because judges have been misreading the law in corporations favor.. not just in these cases but pretty much across the board."
Or it could simply be because he did actually engage in theft of services and bragged about it across the internet. You know, just a thought.
That's an extraordinary claim, I await your extraordinary evidence with intrigue.
More likely it was (naively) never assumed that anyone would try and masquerade URLs through a speedtest URL and bypass the restrictions as a result. This doesn't help the kid though, naively leaving your car or front door unlocked doesn't give a criminal free reign to steal the car or rob your home.
But that's really the point isn't it? They engineered their network for speedtest URLs to bypass all their security measures.
The very act therefore of dressing something up as something it isn't - i.e. masquerading non-speedtest URLs as speedtest URLs is in itself clear an attempt to bypass the purpose of their engineering efforts. No one can rationally put forward a "How could he have known he wasn't allowed to do it argument" not least because the kid has fucking admitted that he recognises this wasn't their intention and that their intention is that he pays for data, and yet has done it anyway.
The problem is that it's hard in general to come up with any reason how or why you might "accidentally" proxy everything through a speedtest URL and hence accidentally bypass data usage restrictions - it's the sort of thing that's just never going to happen unless their is an intent to bypass restrictions, and when that intent is there any hope of winning a defence against argument of theft of services is basically impossible at that point.
This isn't like copyright infringement where you can reasonably argue that you were already paying for the bandwidth and you would never have bought the copyright material anyway, and thus no one has been deprived of anything and thus this isn't theft. This is someone using a service that actually costs the carrier money to maintain and provide, bandwidth that has to be paid for across networks by the carrier, and so the carrier has genuinely been deprived of data that it can now not provide to other users, instead it has to pay for more data transit costs for those users instead. That's why this is reasonable to describe as genuine theft unlike copyright infringement.
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.