Or, you could draw lines through the bad part of the agreement, initial by each line, sign the amended contract and hand it to them. Unless they see you scribbling in it, they're unlikely to read what you did, and if they accept the signed agreement back and then give you service, they've accepted the contract.
Not quite.
Any such amendment made on the copy of a contract must be initialed by all parties. If an alteration is initialled by only one party, it is not a valid alteration and the unaltered contract is in force. Otherwise alterations could be made unilaterally by only 1 party after the contract had already been signed.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[2][3]
Saying "go find it yourself" doesn't meet the burden of proof on the person making a claim.
government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website
Because the former would require significantly more resources - manpower, money - and harm the political donations and kickbacks from a major industry - Hollywood - and embarrass more wealthy and powerful people - again Hollywood - than the latter.
While it would be a significant political statement from those providers, it would not be technically effective to prevent access.
They could just use the standard mechanisms that are advised for downloaders or geo-block defeating or people behind regimes like China's Great Firewall - VPNs, proxies, etc.
Of course, that could open up another can of worms. I seem to recall a case (details escape me, therefore I could be completely, utterly wrong) that was reported here on TD a while back, where someone was convicted, I think under the CFAA, for bypassing those types of blocks. The accused had received C&Ds to stop accessing a service and the IP blocks were then regarded as technological access control measures (so maybe it was the DMCA?), therefore bypassing them was a breach of something-or-other.
Any website that went over to requiring a facebook account to comment on I stopped visiting. Perfect example was Techcrunch, when they went to requiring facebook I stopped visiting entirely. Even after they reversed that requirement 2(?) years later, I still don't visit the site , with the exception of reading the articles there about their policy reversal, but apart from that I've never been back. I don't trust the judgement of people who'd make such a stupid decision in the first place.
I won't pretend that there are no potential conflicts of interest here, but under legal ease can "accept" be construed to also include buying something?
I think that would depend on whether it was finalised because he was president as opposed to because of the normal process.
For example, if a normal billionaire (is there any such thing?) offered to purchase something (a trademark, a national treasure - e.g. Mona Lisa, Terracotta Army, Tower of London, Ayers Rock, Yellowstone, Chichen Itza, Sphinx, Acropolis, Mecca, Kremlin, Valley of the Kings) but they are all turned down - except for a private purchase by a billionaire who also happens to be the POTUS. That I think might fall under the emoluments clause,
"bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified,"
and
agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified";
are not the same thing.
At the time the following actions were done, they were not regarded as terror attacks, but as militarily justifiable:
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
nuclear bombing of Nagasaki
fire-bombing of Tokyo
fire-bombing of Dresden
carpet bombing of various European cities during WWII
Therefore depending on how the question is phrased, some might and some might not regard the above as terror attacks, therefore influencing their answer.
Were the semantics of the questions asked of each of those groups the same? e.g. Were the questions couched in terms of the local languages, attitudes, definitions, understandings of the words? I mean, the quote you provided doesn't give the results in a common semantic framework.
If the volume of those calls are greater than normal background noise in that area at that time of day (construction work, trucks driving past, kids playing, crowds at sports events, aircraft flying overhead. etc) then make a noise complaint to the appropriate authorities.
If it isn't any greater than other same time-of-day noise, then what does it matter?
I think this one is going to be worse than the SCO lawsuit...
At least in the SCO lawsuit, SCO itself was a failing company with no revenues, just investors propping up the lawsuit, so it eventually ran out of money and filed for bankruptcy.
Unfortunately in this case, both companies are monsters and very profitable businesses.
In 2016, Oracle had profits of US$8.9B on revenues of US$39B (pretty good return there).
Google (well, Alphabet Inc. now) had profits of US$19.5B on revenues of US$90B
So both companies can afford to keep paying for this suit out of petty cash for a looonnngggg time to come.
In the comments to various stories on this topic on this site and many other, I frequently see commenters decrying the mere audacity of the courts to review an EO - "How dare they, they don't have the right, it is unreviewable!".
Therefore to me, the most important sentence in the entire ruling is the conclusion of section IV. Reviewability of the Executive Order on page 18 (emphasis mine):
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
On the post: PR-Stupid JetSmarter Will Charge Journalists $2000 If They Don't Write Positive Reviews
Re: Re: I can see the article now...
Not quite.
Any such amendment made on the copy of a contract must be initialed by all parties. If an alteration is initialled by only one party, it is not a valid alteration and the unaltered contract is in force. Otherwise alterations could be made unilaterally by only 1 party after the contract had already been signed.
On the post: Top Russian Net Official Says Children Under 10 Shouldn't Go Online -- At All
Re: Re: Re:
Burden of proof
Saying "go find it yourself" doesn't meet the burden of proof on the person making a claim.
On the post: Judge Blocks California's IMDb-Targeting 'Ageism'' Law, Citing Free Speech Concerns
Because the former would require significantly more resources - manpower, money - and harm the political donations and kickbacks from a major industry - Hollywood - and embarrass more wealthy and powerful people - again Hollywood - than the latter.
On the post: Sen. Wyden Wants Answers From New DHS Head, Introducing Legislation To Create Warrant Requirement For Border Phone Searches
Re:
While it would be a significant political statement from those providers, it would not be technically effective to prevent access.
They could just use the standard mechanisms that are advised for downloaders or geo-block defeating or people behind regimes like China's Great Firewall - VPNs, proxies, etc.
Of course, that could open up another can of worms. I seem to recall a case (details escape me, therefore I could be completely, utterly wrong) that was reported here on TD a while back, where someone was convicted, I think under the CFAA, for bypassing those types of blocks. The accused had received C&Ds to stop accessing a service and the IP blocks were then regarded as technological access control measures (so maybe it was the DMCA?), therefore bypassing them was a breach of something-or-other.
On the post: Sen. Wyden Wants Answers From New DHS Head, Introducing Legislation To Create Warrant Requirement For Border Phone Searches
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Bill Introduced To Add A Warrant Requirement To Stingray Deployment
intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA etc) or the military (Army/Air Force/Coast Guard/Marines/Navy)?
Or non-US citizens inside the US?
On the post: Coalition Slams DHS Plans To Demand Social Media Passwords
Re:
On the post: Coalition Slams DHS Plans To Demand Social Media Passwords
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A positive side to giving away your passwords
Is this a new feature? I swear that 12 months ago there wasn't that ability.
On the post: Coalition Slams DHS Plans To Demand Social Media Passwords
Re: Shall I or not?
There's your mistake right there.
On the post: Coalition Slams DHS Plans To Demand Social Media Passwords
Re: Re: Re: Re: A positive side to giving away your passwords
If you suspend your facebook, all you (or anyone) needs to do to re-activate it is to login to it.
On the post: Court To Cop: You Took 80 Days Away From A Person's Life With A Baseless Warrant, So We're Taking Your Immunity
Re: Re: And you wonder about U.S. criminality
On the post: New Zealand Court Says Kim Dotcom Still Eligible For Extradition... But Not Over Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the way it does that is by obtaining a conviction of that crime. If there is no conviction, then there has been no proven criminal act.
On the post: Chinese Trademarks And The Emoluments Clause: Do They Intersect In The Trump Presidency?
Re: Streching it...
I think that would depend on whether it was finalised because he was president as opposed to because of the normal process.
For example, if a normal billionaire (is there any such thing?) offered to purchase something (a trademark, a national treasure - e.g. Mona Lisa, Terracotta Army, Tower of London, Ayers Rock, Yellowstone, Chichen Itza, Sphinx, Acropolis, Mecca, Kremlin, Valley of the Kings) but they are all turned down - except for a private purchase by a billionaire who also happens to be the POTUS. That I think might fall under the emoluments clause,
On the post: FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just going on the quotes you've posted, but:
and
are not the same thing.
At the time the following actions were done, they were not regarded as terror attacks, but as militarily justifiable:
Therefore depending on how the question is phrased, some might and some might not regard the above as terror attacks, therefore influencing their answer.
Were the semantics of the questions asked of each of those groups the same? e.g. Were the questions couched in terms of the local languages, attitudes, definitions, understandings of the words? I mean, the quote you provided doesn't give the results in a common semantic framework.
On the post: FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans
Re: Re: Re:
If it isn't any greater than other same time-of-day noise, then what does it matter?
On the post: FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans
Re: Re: Tech?
They probably do now... ;)
On the post: PayPal Kills Canadian Paper's Submission To Media Awards Because Article Had Word 'Syrian' In The Title
Re:
On the post: Oracle Files Its Opening Brief As It Tries (Again) To Overturn Google's Fair Use Win On Java APIs
Re: Zombie lawsuit
At least in the SCO lawsuit, SCO itself was a failing company with no revenues, just investors propping up the lawsuit, so it eventually ran out of money and filed for bankruptcy.
Unfortunately in this case, both companies are monsters and very profitable businesses.
In 2016, Oracle had profits of US$8.9B on revenues of US$39B (pretty good return there).
Google (well, Alphabet Inc. now) had profits of US$19.5B on revenues of US$90B
So both companies can afford to keep paying for this suit out of petty cash for a looonnngggg time to come.
On the post: Court Orders Small Ohio Speed Trap Town To Refund $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speeding Tickets
Re:
That's brilliant.
Race to patent it first! ;)
On the post: Court Unanimously Keeps Lower Court's Injunction Against Trump's Immigration Order In Place
In the comments to various stories on this topic on this site and many other, I frequently see commenters decrying the mere audacity of the courts to review an EO - "How dare they, they don't have the right, it is unreviewable!".
Therefore to me, the most important sentence in the entire ruling is the conclusion of section IV. Reviewability of the Executive Order on page 18 (emphasis mine):
Next >>