Kobolds with a keyboard.
Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.
It seems kind of ridiculous that ongoing legal proceedings don’t pause the statute of limitations for this sort of thing.
This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet. It’s not like they’re making DVDs of pirated movies and selling them on the street corner; they were basically just aggregating content and the service they were providing was making it easily searchable and accessible, not doing the actual pirating, from the sound of it, unless I’m misunderstanding the situation.
I wish I could show my country next to my username or something lol.
You could use a vanity username with a flag emoji in it, if you really wanted to.
As a millenial, I am 100% on board with skipping right over us, too, and getting a Gen Zer in there. They have the most to lose if the climate crisis continues and therefore I trust them the most to actually push to do something about it. In fact, let’s just fill the entire government with Gen Zers.
“Why do you seek to deny [the right to an abortion] to other women?” Clark pressed.
“Let me, let me — I don’t, I don’t,” Holtorf replied.
“You have voted to restrict abortion access,” Clark shot back.
“And I have. And I’m a pro-life person. I think you should try to choose life every time. But there are exceptions. And there are times when you need abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure,” declared Holtorf.
There are exceptions, like when it’s inconvenient for the rich and powerful. Other people should (be compelled by law to) choose life every time.
The fact that we have people on minor drug offenses serving years in prison, but these assholes are negotiating when, if ever, they’re going to maybe serve a few-month sentence is such an outrageous failure of the justice system, I feel like there’s really no way to solve any of these issues without just tearing the whole institution down and rebuilding it from the ground up with new, reasonable rules.
They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law?
“The police never informed me I was doing anything illegal before arresting me, so how could I possibly have known?”
Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense against breaking it in any other sector…
Assuming you’re making the change in your browser’s default search settings, and not editing the URL every time you do a search, it takes a minute or two once, and it’s done forever. No harder than adding an adblock rule and it also removes a lot of other bullshit, too (since it’s just defaulting you to a ‘web only’ search).
Just because it’s an edge case doesn’t mean 30% of your userbase won’t encounter it!
Garland wrote in a separate letter to Biden that the audio recordings of his interview “fall within the scope of executive privilege,” and that giving the recordings to Congress "would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department’s ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal investigations — in particular, investigations where the voluntary cooperation of White House officials is exceedingly important.”
Yeah, I mean, this seems completely reasonable? This doesn’t seem like a scandal so much as shutting down a probable attempt by the GOP to make a big deal out of these audio recordings’ contents regardless of what it is (or isn’t), which would undoubtedly make future subjects of these interviews guard their tongues a lot more.
I work at a company whose entire business model is providing QA to other companies. I work directly with some very large, public companies, and some smaller ones. Almost all of them have some form of dedicated in-house QA, which we supplement.
It’s not a problem of there not being enough homes for everyone, it’s that the vacant homes are not being made available to people who want / need them. There are far more than enough homes. In fact there’s about 26 vacant homes for every homeless person in the US.
Yeah, so see, this is the problem.
Honestly, I’d like to be able to use my vote to take 1 vote away from a candidate. Just count me as -1 for Trump. Let it send the message that I don’t like any candidate enough to vote for them; the only thing I care about is that it isn’t him.
I hope so too, but I also hope that the margin is thin as a wire, and ideally, that voter turnout on both sides sets record lows. And I hope it results in better candidates in the future, and maybe a 3rd and 4th party emerging to fill the voter gaps. I don’t think any of this will happen, but it’d be nice.
Much better than Sandra did, to be honest. The crowd was clearly into it and she just spent the whole time looking wholly uncomfortable and seemingly not understanding what was going on.
For the Emperor! For the Golden Throne!
Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren’t filmed. It’s usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don’t really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.
While that could be a worthy topic of discussion, these scenarios can be immediately addressed using a DMCA counter-notice. BPC’s creator can simply file one with GitLab and in less than two weeks’ time, the platform would have to restore it, if whoever sent the original notice didn’t sue the developer in the United States.
Who is the author of this piece suggesting pays for that potential lawsuit? Like, it’s great to say “Oh, they can totally fight this, and they’re probably in the right to do so”, but companies weaponizing the legal system is basically trivial for them to do, and unless they’re offering to help foot that bill, they’re putting all the risk on the developer which isn’t really fair.
I mean, to play devil’s advocate, it’s their job. He’s their client, they’re supposed to work in their client’s best interest, and as long as they’re not breaking any laws to do it, they’re doing what they’re being paid to do.
I think it more comes down to the judge needing to put a stop to the bad-faith arguments; if the judge is accepting them, why wouldn’t they keep making them?