To be fair, if the barber screws up while giving you an old-fashioned shave with a straight razor it could kill you...
Hmm, ok, let's list what a police officer could do to you...
1) Beat you up and then arrest YOU for 'resisting arrest'; 2) Get you thrown in jail on trumped up charges. Sure, you might not get convicted, but while spending 18 months on remand you could get murdered, raped, assaulted, and/or pick up one of the many contagious diseases in jail, hep C, HIV, and so on; 3) Jump-up on the bonnet of your stationery, trapped and fully surrounded vehicle and empty a full clip of ammo into the unarmed (with no witnesses having seen any weapons) occupants shooting them dead, AFTER 30 OTHER cops had already fired in excess of 100 rounds into the vehicle; 4) get you put on the no-fly list with no evidence; 5) arrest you and escort you to hospital where you are subjected to x-rays, forced rectal exams, and a fully-anesthetised, non-consensual colonoscopy; 6) Shot and killed as collateral damage when the police shoot at the offender; 7) Get pulled over at gunpoint by a swarm of armed police because an ANPR system mis-read a number plate for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT type of vehicle (make, model, colour, style all different).
Need I go on?
How many people die from "death by barber" as opposed to "death by cop"? And here I'm just thinking of unarmed/unjustified shootings, innocent bystanders, and so on, not the classic "shootout with armed criminal" scenario.
The NSA would be more likely to use NSLs than court orders, wouldn't they? And UPS would not be allowed to confirm that fact.
They would be in breach of NSLs if they admitted they'd received them. They'd open themselves up to civil suits if they said they'd never received any when they had.
They may not be able to admit to receiving NSLs, but they couldn't lie and say they have NOT received any NSLs.
They would be between a rock and a hard place. About the only answer they could provide that would protect them in all cases would be "no comment".
You may have 2 conflicting laws, law A on safety etc, and law B on copyright.
It would be up to the courts (not you, or a lawyer) to decide which law would take precedence, the copyright law or health/safety/construction laws.
It could be quite possible for the courts to decide that the copyright law takes precedence and that the wall could not be fixed if it would damage the artwork. The result of this would be the wall no longer meets the various health/safety/construction laws/regulations, which would mean the owner of the four seasons would have to close the restaurant. And, if the wall was structural to more than just the restaurant (if it was part of an office building for example) then the building's certificate of occupancy could be revoked.
Just because a decision would seem to be nonsensical (copyright takes precedence, therefore wall can't be fixed, therefore all businesses in building have to be closed and abandoned) doesn't mean the courts would find otherwise if that's the way the law is written.
Not sure how it works in other countries, but in Australia the RETAILER is REQUIRED by law to offer a warranty, usually 12 months, sometimes more. Therefore in the legislated minimum warranty period, it is irrelevant whether the manufacturer offers a warranty or not (such as if the product is sold outside the manufacturer's warrantied countries by the retailer) as it is the retailer that is responsible for that warranty.
The retailer must honour the warranty and, if the retailer still has a warranty on it's purchase from the manufacturer, it can return the product to the manufacturer to get it's warranty honoured.
If the manufacturer offers a warranty greater than the statutory minimum, and the problem arises outside the statutory period but within the extended warranty period, then the consumer needs to go back to the manufacturer for that component of the warranty.
IANAL, but as far as I understand citizens united ruling, it overturned restrictions/limits on the amount/size of campaign contributions, it didn't overturn reporting requirements, which is what this suit is about.
Re: Re: Re: Dealerships Are An Indispensable Part of Process
So anyone should be able to just hop on ebay and buy a car? Like you would buy some glass casserole dish or pod-based coffee maker?
Yes, and you already can buy a car online with ebay. Or carsales.com.au, or drive.com.au, other places too.
All you need is a spec sheet, some ability to use google to find out anything you don't understand, or maybe ask your more knowledgeable friends. Consumer review sites too.
Actually, one thing a dealership is good for, somewhere to go to test drive a car before you order it online.
There's a reason car salesman are used as the butt of jokes regarding: 1) high pressure sales tactics; 2) lieing; 3) overcharging.
Because they do all of the above.
"Yes love, you really need the genuine $600 floor mats, you can't trust those $30 auto-parts store ones that are made of the same material and probably come from the same production line in china"
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one but they are best kept to oneself. (and yes this is an opinion that should be kept to myself ... start infinite recursion)
I agree with this. They should only be charging for issuing, not revocationn.
It's sorta like the old saying:
Every takeoff is optional, every landing is mandatory
So they are taking advantage of the fact that takeoffs are optional, so they are free. But since once you've taken off you HAVE to land at asome point, they are gonna charge you for that.
How do they endanger everyone useing the internet? At worst they endanger the sites and users of the sites the certificates are for. That is not "everyone who uses the internet".
Since this decision is effectively retrospective to the date of implementation of this directive, does that mean that anyone convicted of crimes based on evidence obtained by exercising this directive (or the local laws made to comply with the directive) now have valid grounds of appeal?
Adobe Acrobat (Adobe's PDF creator) has an actual specific redaction MODE. There is a tool that says something like "redaction tool" that performs, you know, actual redactions of the selected area rather than just 'black-boxing' it.
There also a function, I think it's called 'sanitizing' or something similiar, within Acrobat that destroys all the metadata fields in the PDF to remove the author information and all other information specifically for public releases of documents.
"the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security"
The Whitehouse and Intelligence organisations think EVERYONE is, at least potentially, threatening their national security. Therefore by definition no-one falls within the "ordinary people who don't threaten our national security" category.
The AG is a member of parliament (i.e. voted into the legislature's upper or lower house in a general election) appointed by the Governor General upon advice of the Prime Minister.
So the AG's position is not directly voted on, but the AG must be appointed out of the pool of people voted into the legislature in a general (or by-) election.
Those are the only two outcomes technically possible, which is a huge problem for the Executive Branch.
I agree.
I'd assume that an investigation of this level would require authorization from the Attorney General if not the President himself.
So either: 1) The AG or the President authorized an investigation into staffers of the senate intelligence committee - bad juju for the the authorizers, possibly political suicide; or, 2) The CIA illegally spied on the senate intelligence committee hence breaking MANY laws (CFAA plus other laws regarding the legal limits of the CIA etc).
the internet is a... well, *GASP* international net.
Incorrect. The Internet is a series of interconnected networks. A network of networks. It is not one gigantic network. It is made up of national (and other) networks that are themselves made up of thousands, millions of separate networks that all interconnect. Each ISP is its own, separate network that interconnects with other networks (this is where peering comes in, see the recent stories about netflix peering problems).
On the post: Texas Deputy Displays Ignorance Of Laws He's 'Enforcing' While Trying To Shut Down A Citizen's Recording
Re: Re: How much training do the cops get?
Hmm, ok, let's list what a police officer could do to you...
1) Beat you up and then arrest YOU for 'resisting arrest';
2) Get you thrown in jail on trumped up charges. Sure, you might not get convicted, but while spending 18 months on remand you could get murdered, raped, assaulted, and/or pick up one of the many contagious diseases in jail, hep C, HIV, and so on;
3) Jump-up on the bonnet of your stationery, trapped and fully surrounded vehicle and empty a full clip of ammo into the unarmed (with no witnesses having seen any weapons) occupants shooting them dead, AFTER 30 OTHER cops had already fired in excess of 100 rounds into the vehicle;
4) get you put on the no-fly list with no evidence;
5) arrest you and escort you to hospital where you are subjected to x-rays, forced rectal exams, and a fully-anesthetised, non-consensual colonoscopy;
6) Shot and killed as collateral damage when the police shoot at the offender;
7) Get pulled over at gunpoint by a swarm of armed police because an ANPR system mis-read a number plate for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT type of vehicle (make, model, colour, style all different).
Need I go on?
How many people die from "death by barber" as opposed to "death by cop"? And here I'm just thinking of unarmed/unjustified shootings, innocent bystanders, and so on, not the classic "shootout with armed criminal" scenario.
On the post: Quick Hack Will Now Alert People When The Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings On Its Site
Re: Re:
On the post: TrueCrypt Page Says It's Not Secure, All Development Stopped
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trusted Systems
On the post: UPS Insists That It Is Not Helping The NSA 'Interdict' Packages To Install Backdoors
Re: NSLs?
They would be in breach of NSLs if they admitted they'd received them. They'd open themselves up to civil suits if they said they'd never received any when they had.
They may not be able to admit to receiving NSLs, but they couldn't lie and say they have NOT received any NSLs.
They would be between a rock and a hard place. About the only answer they could provide that would protect them in all cases would be "no comment".
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
Re:
You may have 2 conflicting laws, law A on safety etc, and law B on copyright.
It would be up to the courts (not you, or a lawyer) to decide which law would take precedence, the copyright law or health/safety/construction laws.
It could be quite possible for the courts to decide that the copyright law takes precedence and that the wall could not be fixed if it would damage the artwork. The result of this would be the wall no longer meets the various health/safety/construction laws/regulations, which would mean the owner of the four seasons would have to close the restaurant. And, if the wall was structural to more than just the restaurant (if it was part of an office building for example) then the building's certificate of occupancy could be revoked.
Just because a decision would seem to be nonsensical (copyright takes precedence, therefore wall can't be fixed, therefore all businesses in building have to be closed and abandoned) doesn't mean the courts would find otherwise if that's the way the law is written.
On the post: Newegg Given The Go Ahead To Pursue 'Douche Bag' Patent Troll For Fees
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The retailer must honour the warranty and, if the retailer still has a warranty on it's purchase from the manufacturer, it can return the product to the manufacturer to get it's warranty honoured.
If the manufacturer offers a warranty greater than the statutory minimum, and the problem arises outside the statutory period but within the extended warranty period, then the consumer needs to go back to the manufacturer for that component of the warranty.
On the post: TV Networks Sued For Hiding Who's Buying Political Ads
Re:
Or did I misunderstand?
On the post: FTC Goes To Bat For Tesla: Says States Shouldn't Limit Tesla Sales Model
Re: Re: Re: Dealerships Are An Indispensable Part of Process
Yes, and you already can buy a car online with ebay. Or carsales.com.au, or drive.com.au, other places too.
All you need is a spec sheet, some ability to use google to find out anything you don't understand, or maybe ask your more knowledgeable friends. Consumer review sites too.
Actually, one thing a dealership is good for, somewhere to go to test drive a car before you order it online.
There's a reason car salesman are used as the butt of jokes regarding:
1) high pressure sales tactics;
2) lieing;
3) overcharging.
Because they do all of the above.
"Yes love, you really need the genuine $600 floor mats, you can't trust those $30 auto-parts store ones that are made of the same material and probably come from the same production line in china"
On the post: The Stupidity Of Installing Bloatware That No One Uses... And Everyone Hates
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shameful Security: StartCom Charges People To Revoke SSL Certs Vulnerable To Heartbleed
Re: Re: Disagree
It's sorta like the old saying:
So they are taking advantage of the fact that takeoffs are optional, so they are free. But since once you've taken off you HAVE to land at asome point, they are gonna charge you for that.
Sad, but effective, way to do business.
On the post: Shameful Security: StartCom Charges People To Revoke SSL Certs Vulnerable To Heartbleed
Re: Re: Re: Disagree
However, while I think they should be revoking certs for free, it is a different situation because they didn't make the problem.
On the post: Shameful Security: StartCom Charges People To Revoke SSL Certs Vulnerable To Heartbleed
Re: Re: Disagree
How do they endanger everyone useing the internet? At worst they endanger the sites and users of the sites the certificates are for. That is not "everyone who uses the internet".
On the post: EU Data Retention Requirements Ruled 'Invalid' By EU Court Of Justice
On the post: Judge Otis Wright Slams 'Made Up' Government 'Plot' Designed To Ensnare Gullible Poor People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Setting up Terrorists
On the post: CIA Tells FOIA Requester It Can Only Make PDFs By Printing Out Electronic Documents And Re-Scanning Them
Re: Re: Re: Makes sense
There also a function, I think it's called 'sanitizing' or something similiar, within Acrobat that destroys all the metadata fields in the PDF to remove the author information and all other information specifically for public releases of documents.
On the post: Bogus Comparison Between Detroit In 1990 And Silicon Valley In 2012
Re: Aren't you forgetting the normal distribution of skills
I've worked in IT for 20 years.
I've done various jobs, developer, UNIX sysadmin, middleware support etc.
I think I've done them all competently.
And I'd probably scrape into the top 40%, let alone top 16%...
On the post: NSA Has Capability To Record And Store ALL Foreign Phone Calls In Certain Countries
Re:
The Whitehouse and Intelligence organisations think EVERYONE is, at least potentially, threatening their national security. Therefore by definition no-one falls within the "ordinary people who don't threaten our national security" category.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make It A Criminal Offense To Not Turn Over Private Encryption Keys
Re: Re:
The AG is a member of parliament (i.e. voted into the legislature's upper or lower house in a general election) appointed by the Governor General upon advice of the Prime Minister.
So the AG's position is not directly voted on, but the AG must be appointed out of the pool of people voted into the legislature in a general (or by-) election.
On the post: More Details Revealed Concerning CIA's Spying On Senate Intelligence Committee
Re: CFAA
I agree.
I'd assume that an investigation of this level would require authorization from the Attorney General if not the President himself.
So either:
1) The AG or the President authorized an investigation into staffers of the senate intelligence committee - bad juju for the the authorizers, possibly political suicide; or,
2) The CIA illegally spied on the senate intelligence committee hence breaking MANY laws (CFAA plus other laws regarding the legal limits of the CIA etc).
...
On the post: Australian Broadcasters, Netflix Competitors Pout Because Netflix Hasn't Banned VPN Users Yet
Re: Geo-restrictions on the internet
Incorrect. The Internet is a series of interconnected networks. A network of networks. It is not one gigantic network. It is made up of national (and other) networks that are themselves made up of thousands, millions of separate networks that all interconnect. Each ISP is its own, separate network that interconnects with other networks (this is where peering comes in, see the recent stories about netflix peering problems).
Next >>