The police love their dogs so much because smells aren't protected like that. They don't need a warrant to pass by you, but passing by you is all a dog needs. If a dog smells weed, that's probable cause, and now they can do a real search.
In this case random K-9 searches just means there'll be a cop and a dog walking around, seeing what the dog smells, maybe generating that probable cause.
"It feels like the Berlin Wall of tech repair monopolies is starting to crumble, brick by brick."
Feeling like that just screams how corrupt our government is. Apple shouldn't get a vote, and their approval is the last thing that should be required to approve this.
Corporations should have to work in whatever environment consumer protection laws let them have, instead of dictating what protections we get.
Yeah that's the whole discussion. Instacart charges fees for its use but it also doesn't show customers the receipt it got from the store, because the prices it says goods cost it don't match what it paid.
I'd agree with you if it was expected that prices would go up.
If I buy that HDMI cable for 9.99 at a store, I know that some of that money is going towards the store's upkeep, employees, all that.
If I bought that cable at some gas station close to my house for 14.99, I know I could get it for cheaper, so I know I'm paying 5 extra for some convenience.
If I bought the same cable for 12.99 and a 5$ convenience fee from a delivery app, and learn it was a 9.99 cable, I was told the convenience fee was 5, but I paid 7 for convenience. I'm mad, because I was lied to.
It's not about the higher charges. Not directly. It's about the fact that I already covered the purchase price for the product and the service charge for delivery, but then I was secretly charged even more.
It's about the deception. Like when a thing is normally 40$ but then it goes on sale, so the tag reads "80$ 49.99$"
Mozilla still has terms and conditions, so there's still a relationship, and still a liability for them letting a customer misuse their browser, even if they don't keep data on everyone.
While I absolutely agree it's ridiculous, as I read it, it would also apply to self-hosted software and things like thunderbird that are technically a browser.
Still, I expect enforcement to really only care about "real" browsers, not one user and their own thing or someone using Thunderbird to browse the web. France (and most other governments) have shown multiple times that they don't really look into the how they'd do these things before they try to make it law and it'd be a mess.
As per the article this post linked, this would definitely be a new precedent, browsers have never been responsible for this content, and whatever actually happens is up in the air. I'm mostly talking worst-case scenario. It's entirely possible some other business or consumer protection law makes this unenforceable, or any number of other situations, but since the French government decides how unreasonable they're gonna be, that's all up to them. Maybe they crusade against Firefox, maybe they give up when they realize there's only so much to do without drafting even more, and maybe they do go after everyone, including thunderbird or any other app that opens a webpage. Probably just ones that navigate to the illegal webpages though.
Still, a measure that's completely defeated by a VPN, unless they add all of them to their illegal pages.
Making something available when it's not legal to do so is still a crime. Mozilla can't put the burden of "Is this illegal?" on the downloader. On top of that, with the specific nature of this law, they'll likely get added to this blocked list.
"For research" changes nothing, there isn't an exception for research in the French law (as far as I know, at least).
Nothing would stop a French person from taking extra steps to circumvent the law, so it's true that it could be gotten around with a VPN or peer-to-peer sharing of the installer, and Mozilla isn't liable for that, but also that would still dramatically reduce Firefox installs in France. It isn't really a good solution for Firefox to need the same steps as piracy for people to access it.
Firefox not needing user accounts isn't that relevant, because it's the distribution of illegal software that will be acted upon.
While it's true that they wouldn't necessarily have to pay a French fine, most large companies have assets in a lot of nations. For Mozilla, this could be people that translate the browser to French, who may have office space or supplies, and the French government could seize Mozilla's French assets, which also impacts their other projects like Thunderbird.
A search tells me they do have such an office in Paris which would be threatened by their noncompliance, which does include just telling French people it's illegal but letting them do it anyway.
Firefox is open source but it's controlled by the Mozilla Foundation.
The steps would be
Pass the law
Tell Mozilla they're breaking the law
Do things to them as they're breaking the law
It could be fines, it could be banning firefox in France. The good/bad roles are flipped, but anything anyone has tried to do to meta can be done to Mozilla, too. The only alternative Mozilla would have would be purposefully pulling Firefox from France.
Ultimately, Mozilla would have a vote of some kind, deciding to capitulate or pull firefox (or just keep paying fees, potentially, but they're not made of money).
The issue is they're hiding it. If a business felt they were totally on the up-and-up, they wouldn't try so hard to hide it.
I agree that undoing this would pretty much certainly mean they raise the actual rate they charge customers, but I feel that's a far better system. Even if that charge wasn't a flat charge and was like, 10% of the total or whatever the math currently works out to.
Basically, if they need to charge more money, do it. Don't scam people into thinking groceries are more than they are. A disclaimer that prices have said 10% markup would do.
2014 is when a majority of new systems were UEFI, according to Wikipedia, but that's still a majority.
Intel announced in 2017 that by 2020 they're no longer gonna include BIOS support in their computers. So it could easily still pop up today, although it's not that likely to, since that support is for devices that can use either BIOS or UEFI.
The ad revenue is a portion of what the advertisers paid.
YouTube DOES get its content for free. They pay YouTubers per view, essentially a portion of profit, whereas something like Netflix pays for the creation of content and then also a portion of profit made.
If we're going strict RAW, the "from others" clause only affects life force, not HP. Spells don't do more than what they say, after all. So you can take HP from others, but not life force.
The above was advocating for a 25-year period between publishing and public domain. They'll have to somehow pay that mortgage with a quarter of a century of profit somehow.
New books get new protections anyway, so a 25-year-old series only loses book 1 to public domain. They can also release new editions of book 1 with new (canon) content, and those new things get new protections, too.
There's guidelines, and according to the text above, the first movie followed them.
But someone has to apply the guidelines, and also what's fine or not changes over time. Something being rated R is ultimately an opinion.
It'd be cool if there were actual standards, or at least an appeals process so a movie isn't limited to just the first review if they feel it's not accurate.
Nah, it's specifically not a crime to be arrested, that'd be an infinite jail glitch.
He'll waste it all on lawyers whose job will be to disprove hard evidence though, since he's very guilty, so it'll be fine.