You know, that would also probably make Congress/Parliament/what-have-you too busy looking at old laws to pass pork/raise taxes/etc. That way you kill two birds with one stone.
What if you can't efficiently do low level bit-bashing?
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
If the original processors were Turing-complete, why not write a low level (bare metal) hypervisor with memory protection etc.? It would be fucking slow, but it would work.
That's just because Jefferson wanted State Nullification, which IMAO makes a mess since it allows the equivalent of a circuit split with no overarching resolution (i.e. federal law could be different in different states).
The U.S. has one political party, the lobbyists, subdivided into two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.
Somehow, we call ourselves a democracy. This is exactly why the health care bill's public option was jettisoned. The whole Dems vs Reps was a farce created by the Lobbyists for the insurance companies (if the Dems had wanted to get the (entire) damn thing passed, they would have done so six months ago when they had the votes).
First of all there is NOTHING in the Constitution explicitly protecting privacy. Nothing. Everything relating to privacy in the Constitution has been inferred. Go ahead and read it. You won't find the word privacy or anything like it mentioned even once.
Slashdot Mirror
Where, exactly, is the boundary line between a file format and its documentation/specs?
But what if you miss a trick? FS encryption won't help you at all since it's transparent to the DB.
Why does IETF need a /4 ?
... when you need to look them up.
I read that as "lock them up".
What about Title II?
Hardware isn't "a work" by any stretch of the imagination. IANAL.
He's not saying Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market. He's saying that Apple is tying the App Store to the iPhone.
You know, that would also probably make Congress/Parliament/what-have-you too busy looking at old laws to pass pork/raise taxes/etc. That way you kill two birds with one stone.
Keep in mind the US's "First past the post" system gives a huge advantage to the major parties.
What if you're turning left and there's a lot of oncoming traffic?
What if you can't efficiently do low level bit-bashing?
If the original processors were Turing-complete, why not write a low level (bare metal) hypervisor with memory protection etc.? It would be fucking slow, but it would work.
Wikipedia's article on Homeopathy
Citizendium's article on same
Interesting comparison there.
They already know it isn't safe to drive while talking on the phone.
I was under the impression that there are always at least two workers there when they open the envelopes.
That's just because Jefferson wanted State Nullification, which IMAO makes a mess since it allows the equivalent of a circuit split with no overarching resolution (i.e. federal law could be different in different states).
No, you got it on the nose.
The U.S. has one political party, the lobbyists, subdivided into two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.
Somehow, we call ourselves a democracy. This is exactly why the health care bill's public option was jettisoned. The whole Dems vs Reps was a farce created by the Lobbyists for the insurance companies (if the Dems had wanted to get the (entire) damn thing passed, they would have done so six months ago when they had the votes).
assuming they wrote their law to skirt around 1st-amendment protections at least. which is a big if.
Run that by me again. How, exactly, does one define "sedition" while skirting around 1st amendment?
Those are all federal agencies. Why would any of them give a hoot what Mass thinks?
Not that much is legislated federally
So why did we elect Obama?
A lot of American cities seem to be developed in a criss-cross pattern so that might make the task easier..
See also: Boston
Nope, still don't get it. Do you have a car analogy?
Erm... What you get when the copyrights for Windows 1-12 eventually expire?
Please read the 14th amendment. SCOTUS didn't do anything.
First of all there is NOTHING in the Constitution explicitly protecting privacy. Nothing. Everything relating to privacy in the Constitution has been inferred. Go ahead and read it. You won't find the word privacy or anything like it mentioned even once.
The fourth and ninth amendments taken together. See also the fourteenth.