Those clauses are unenforceable 99% of the time and nullify that version, and all future versions, of the contract. The only clauses like that that are considered enforceable are ones that cover very minor changes or those required due to changes in law.

Americans don’t even use it any more; it came before there was an international version so it’s kind of silly to treat it like some weird ‘america different’ thing.

Russia still uses their version, especially in the navy.

• as old as time_fast32_t

Settlements can go undisclosed by agreement of the parties involved. Civil court is different from criminal; the former is for the benefit of interested parties, the latter is for the benefit of the public at large. Criminal courts can do some things behind closed doors as well but that usually requires a need of the state (such as protection of a judge, jury, state, etc.)

This is assuming a legal system similar to that in OPs post.

4Chan doesn’t have their own personal payment processor that they’re responsible for. They’re tied into processors like stripe and accept all payments that make it to them on the US side. So long as it is legal, which is typically the only way that a payment actually goes through as processors refuse the obviously illegal cases like encompassing embargoes. If the UK doesn’t want payments going to 4chan through a processor that operates in their country, it’s on them to stop the payment processor on their end.

The UK knows this, the fines are just one step towards them petitioning processors.

Learn to read.

Not who you replied to, but: there is no legal, ethical, or moral, requirement for a business of one country to comply with the laws of another. If there was, all business would be beholden to the most overbearing government on any one subject. And just to specifically state it before it’s brought up, being tied into the international banking system doesn’t change that; if a state doesn’t want its citizenry doing business with a particular entity, it’s on them to stop it on their side or come to an agreement with the other’s government. Which does happen, especially with the conglomerate hegemony of components of the international banking system, but naturally that means that the only time any entity of a state is forced to comply with the laws of another is when their home-state demands it, which ultimately isn’t the laws of the other.

Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.

Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.

Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.

I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.

That is one reason, yes.

Many modern buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes of some magnitude; this is what reasonable prevention means.

You can’t prevent any natural force unless your uncle knows god (and is on good terms with them). What was stated was the ‘reasonable prevention of damage’. insurance companies that sell earthquake insurance won’t insure buildings that are not up to code, which in turn is based on locally expected disasters, their expected commonality, their expected severity, and what is considered to be reasonable measures for the prevention of damage (or an excess of e.g. mitigation).

For example, where I live you can’t get hail insurance unless you have impact resistant shingles. I had and have exactly that so I got hail insurance; after a particularly bad hail storm (and 8 previous years of wear) I filed a claim and had my entire roof redone at my insurer’s expense. I was kind of surprised how straight forward the process was and the stark absence of bullshittery, but I may have just gotten lucky. The area I’m in gets a lot of hail so it may also be in the insurer’s best interesting not to get a name for denying for hail damage.

I’m an atheist that understands that an act of god refers to any destructive natural event where the damage to property couldn’t have been reasonably prevented. And insurance companies detail exactly what is and isn’t covered per policy; it’s just that they can get away with denying coverage due to lack of oversight/policing of them.

Antibacterial soap are murder. Vaccines are okay though, except for that one weird virus that actually experiences internal changes sans host.

Not to mention the fact that you can force single-factor authentication using Skype for business despite requiring MFA across the board. Just had to patch that hole recently.

I mean… just about everything that’s old-world, north of Africa, west of the Urals, and north/west of Istanbul is considered Europe.

The extent of Europe is very broad, with even Iceland being considered a part of it; and it isn’t bound politically. For example, Denmark is considered to be in Europe but Greenland (a territory of Denmark) isn’t, but then again, the Faroe Islands (another territory of Denmark) is.

You might be thinking more along the lines of the EU (European Union) which is the third iteration of the dominant political/economic entity in much of Europe, born in 1993 when it legally became a person. Where the EU actually reaches across the entire globe due to overseas regions, collectives, and municipalities.

Websites actually just list broad areas, as listing every file/page would be far too verbose for many websites and impossible for any website that has dynamic/user-generated content.

You can view examples by going to most any websites base-url and then adding /robots.txt to the end of it.

For example www.google.com/robots.txt

Jokes on you, the rootkit is likely my own and I just forgot about it.

That is not the false dichotomy you proposed, you just moved the goal posts to make it an actual dichotomy.

That is a false dichotomy. If you accept the idea of the existence of cases with certainty there is the possibility of the restriction of the use of the death penalty to those cases.

I don’t believe pointing out a case where certainty is ensured missed the point; rather, it argues the point. He’s giving an example where execution would be okay due to their being absolute certainty, not arguing that it should be the same outcome where there isn’t absolute certainty.