reverendsteveii

there's a difference between being willing to take an arrest and getting arrested for something stupid. that's like saying that the point of an army is being willing to die for your country, so the best and bravest are the ones who enlist and then immediately commit suicide. be willing to take a hit, but be strategic about the hits you take and avoid taking a hit for no good reason. it's about getting the thing done, not proving that you're super legit.

you're anonymous because you want attention

what's on the parent's right bicep? it looks like the three arrows but mashed up with the big line go up

the wells fargo paddy wagon is coming down the street

"I never told them to commit fraud. I just set goals, and every time those goals were met I increased them until they had no choice but to commit fraud or be fired for not reaching their goals. I'm not responsible for their illegal behavior, and I shouldn't have to bear the consequences. I am, however, still responsible for their profitable behavior and should absolutely bear the consequences for that."

a year is a year to a rich man and a poor man alike. but a $50,000 fine is several years to a poor man and only a moment to a rich man. fines that don't scale with income are a sneaky way to make things only legal for the rich while pretending that there is equal protection under the law.

The requests were made under the guise of anti-terrorism laws

Remember this the next time someone in government says "We need tough anti-terrorism laws". They also get to define what counts as terrorism, so anyone inconvenient can be destroyed and the public told "We're just keeping you safe from terrorism."

can confirm. source: did this 3 separate times

even then, it's essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you're legally entitled to do. If you can't do all that, then your rights are moot.

which tv manufacturer was it that updated their eula and if you didn't agree it bricked your tv?

I can't help but think that if this sort of thing proliferates that it will essentially hamstring reviews. This particular agreement might be just because the game is in alpha, but it's part of a broader trend of ToS/EULA wishlists that are so restrictive that they're probably illegal already buy in order to test that you have to go to court against a huge, overpaid legal team which leads to people having their basic rights violated.

I WAS THE FIRST TO ADD A 9 TO A C NOW EVERY ACOUSTIC COVER FROM 1988 TO 2004 OWES ME $6