In today's news...

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

And that will be the first hurdle they have to address, making these things palatable to the average citizen. Remember, they'd have to get enough of us to want the deal to go through, if their documents are unreadable drivel to the majority, they won't get approved.

Not necessarily, as long as the representative majority is for them (and they are in my home country) they'll only need to obfuscate the actual contents so as to make the public disinterested. :\

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: In today's news...

In other news, not only is microsoft forcing telemetry and automatic updates on anyone using windows 10(as well as updates enabling said telemetry on windows 7 and 8),

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Cappy]

Re: In today's news...

Yar Har Fiddle Tee Dee!! Or, you know, Linux for the more tech savvy of us.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

I guess you could just create that folder yourself and make it read only, if anyone's looking for a solution. But really, if you're aware of how to do that, you're already above the level of knowledge needed to just go through windows updates once a month or so and pick out which ones you want.

What I see going on here is endemic to the monopolies that have been created within the PC industry. Sure there are other options, such as lindows and redhat, but they lack alot of support for drivers and the like, personally I play so many games on my PC that I literally CANT use anything other than Windows. Microsoft has realized this and are now taking advantage of it.

I can't say I blame them, we've allowed them to create and basically rule an industry. Not only that but we've also allowed them to create and dictate policy and law regarding their actions.

If you've ever read a TOS, you'll note that around 90% of it is putrid shit not fit for reading. Once you get past that hurdle you'll be interested to see that alot of their "terms" are unrealistic, often attempting to tell you that you can't alter a program (bullshit, I can alter it all I want as long as I don't distribute it) or other such nonsense. And these things are treated as a binding contract! How fucking insane is that, given that you have to sign them AFTER you've already purchased a product?

To be honest, I understand the need to have laws be a little crazy for intellectual property because of... well the internet. But these TOS's and the laws supporting them are reaching too damn far. Say you were to buy a couch, then when it shows up you have sign a form saying you won't do this, this, or this with the couch before the delivery man will bring it in, you'd stop payment on it then tell them to fuck off and be right to do so!

What microsoft is doing is immoral, reminiscent of some underhanded scam, and SHOULD be illegal. BUT OH, YOU SIGNED OUR TOS SO IT'S OKAY FOR US TO STEAL YOUR BANDWIDTH AND MONITOR YOUR ACTIVITY LIKE WE'RE THE CIA.

 

[XSI]

Re: In today's news...

What microsoft is doing is immoral, reminiscent of some underhanded scam, and SHOULD be illegal. BUT OH, YOU SIGNED OUR TOS SO IT'S OKAY FOR US TO STEAL YOUR BANDWIDTH AND MONITOR YOUR ACTIVITY LIKE WE'RE THE CIA.

But it is illegal

Terms of service and crap like that you agree to -after- buying something is not legally binding anywhere outside the USA
Sucks for the USA though

That, and all this spying on people stuff is also illegal outside of the US in almost every country. But of course, the US based companies give exactly 0 shits about this

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: In today's news...

But it is illegal

Terms of service and crap like that you agree to -after- buying something is not legally binding anywhere outside the USA
Sucks for the USA though

That, and all this spying on people stuff is also illegal outside of the US in almost every country. But of course, the US based companies give exactly 0 shits about this

Not to mention that you can't legally agree to give away legal protections like the right to sue.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

A couple at a church in New York participated in some group counseling of their 17 and 19 year old sons. In order to make them "confess their sins," several congregationalists beat them and kicked them until

You must be registered to see the links

. Now the parents are in custody and being charged with manslaughter, and the cops have made four other related arrests.

So... yeah. Crazy religious people. I feel like I should make some insightful statement, but... they're just crazy. I feel almost as bad for the parents as I do for the poor kids.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: In today's news...

Something is telling me murder is a sin.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

If you want to get Old Testament about it, the most common phrasing is "Thou shalt not kill." Which, if you think about it, goes well beyond murder. Religious conservatives have to do a little song-and-dance to justify capital punishment and military operations.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

Eh, I dunno. The ten commandments might say "thou shalt not kill", but then Leviticus rolls up and straight up brings in several capital crimes: adultery, incest, child sacrifice, bestiality, practicing sorcery, etc. (and also possibly having sex with a woman on her period. It's a bit iffy).

Later in Deuteronomy, god straight up calls for the genocide of all the Caananites, every man, woman and child should be murdered. There's some spiel about how the Caananites are bad people, but regardless, wholesale murder is definitely divinely sanctioned by the end.

The Old Testament is hardcore.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

True, but all the books of both testaments are very different works by very different authors. Personally I think of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as books written (or heavily influenced) by early political leaders who were trying to justify their rules (an early version of the "song and dance" I mentioned).

But we're getting into the weeds over rules written thousands of years ago, and I didn't mean to get into a theological discussion. I was more simply expressing my disgust at what crazy people will do in the name of religion (while maintaining that the majority of religious people are not noticeably crazier than the non-religious).

Of course, this is also the kind of crime than could be perpetrated by an alcoholic parent on a bad night.

 

[XSI]

Re: In today's news...

Sadly, a lot of people out there are batshit insane, or don't care about others. Or both. And of course, they fuck up for everyone else

 

[MrMe]

Re: In today's news...

So last month the EU ruled that travel time between a mobile worker's home and their first and last client sites of the day are classed as working time.

You must be registered to see the links

Naturally, as a mobile ICT technician, this piqued my interest - especially as last month my company decided to assign me two different worksites an hour away and still expected me to get there for 9 am (originally they wanted 8am until I told my bosses to stick it up their arse (one of the advantages of getting paid far below average)) AND then drive back to my home town (where the company is based) to get to my afternoon site - meaning I had no lunch hour until I threatened to find them in breach of contract.

Being that I'm paid fuck all I was looking forward to either a pay rise or reducing my actual work hours to match my contract, but according to this legal site...

You must be registered to see the links

Apparently the ruling only affects how travel time reflects against your maximum weekly hours (the limit of which is 48 unless you opt out) because national minimum wage is calculated and regulated separately to maximum weekly hours, so travel time ends up getting tret like an unpaid lunch hour - as in technically part of your working day but you don't actually get paid for it.


Ain't that a pisser?

 

[Cappy]

Re: In today's news...

So last month the EU ruled that travel time between a mobile worker's home and their first and last client sites of the day are classed as working time.

You must be registered to see the links

Naturally, as a mobile ICT technician, this piqued my interest - especially as last month my company decided to assign me two different worksites an hour away and still expected me to get there for 9 am (originally they wanted 8am until I told my bosses to stick it up their arse (one of the advantages of getting paid far below average)) AND then drive back to my home town (where the company is based) to get to my afternoon site - meaning I had no lunch hour until I threatened to find them in breach of contract.

Being that I'm paid fuck all I was looking forward to either a pay rise or reducing my actual work hours to match my contract, but according to this legal site...

You must be registered to see the links

Apparently the ruling only affects how travel time reflects against your maximum weekly hours (the limit of which is 48 unless you opt out) because national minimum wage is calculated and regulated separately to maximum weekly hours, so travel time ends up getting tret like an unpaid lunch hour - as in technically part of your working day but you don't actually get paid for it.


Ain't that a pisser?

So basically the courts just circlejerked for a few days to look like they were doing something, but accomplishing nothing in the process? Or is there supposed to be some kind of point to that? And yup, that is indeed a pisser.

Not to mention theguardian is the most pathetic shit shows of a "news source" you can possibly come to find these days, I'm not surprised they only posted a fraction of the actual story, assuming that bit is correct, as usual.

 

[MrMe]

Re: In today's news...

Could be just an ambulance chaser trying to grab a client base with promises of legal meanings.
Who knows, but it's the only 'expert' opinion I've been able to find that isn't just repeated drivel from one of the many british media cesspits parroting each other.

Official EU press release is this:

You must be registered to see the links

Gist of the ruling was that because the Tyco Engineers were expected to travel 3 hours there and possibly 3 hour back, after their, I'm assuming, 8 hour 'work day' they were effectively working 14 hours per day.
Worst case scenario being 5 x 14 hour days = 70 hours per week (22 hours above the 48 hour max the Working Time Directive states)
So they were only getting a rest period of 10 hours, an hour less than the minimum requirement of 11 hours.


Still hoping to hear some actual concrete rulings on wages beyond the opinion of one shyster running a legal news site.

 

[Cappy]

Re: In today's news...

Reliable news sources nowadays simply don't seem to exist. Doesn't stop people from trying to use them as citations and "undeniable evidence" however. Thanks, wikipedia.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

Could be just an ambulance chaser trying to grab a client base with promises of legal meanings.
Who knows, but it's the only 'expert' opinion I've been able to find that isn't just repeated drivel from one of the many british media cesspits parroting each other.

Official EU press release is this:

You must be registered to see the links

Gist of the ruling was that because the Tyco Engineers were expected to travel 3 hours there and possibly 3 hour back, after their, I'm assuming, 8 hour 'work day' they were effectively working 14 hours per day.
Worst case scenario being 5 x 14 hour days = 70 hours per week (22 hours above the 48 hour max the Working Time Directive states)
So they were only getting a rest period of 10 hours, an hour less than the minimum requirement of 11 hours.


Still hoping to hear some actual concrete rulings on wages beyond the opinion of one shyster running a legal news site.

That's fucking messed up, and just another example of how working people get screwed over.

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

Speaking of scary shit....

A guy that knows legalese speaks legalese on the TPP.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

And by the powers of double posting, more stupid on the internet regarding to copyright, but this time smaller scale.

Small little narration channel I've ran into recently just got hit by copyright strike cus apparently one of the guys that posted the story claimed copyright... on something he publicly posted on the internet for anyone to view, comment, and pass on, specifically a creepy tale that was picked up by said narrator and used in one of his compilation videos. I'm pretty sure legal-wise the guy doesn't got much of a standing, but unfortunately, the bitch of Youtube Copyright Claims is hitting him with as much as SIX MONTHS of restricted content upload and asking questions never.

You must be registered to see the links

Fucking ridiculous, specially as, stated before, this is about something that feasibly doesn't got much of a leg to stand on.

 

[Guan Yu]

Re: In today's news...

Lazy is love, Lazy is life.