I imagine electronic, with the identification system failing, causing the gun not to fire and allowing the criminal to overpower the cop. The criminal will then leave the gun because it didn't even work for the person for whom it was supposed to work.
Will do almost nothing to stop criminals from getting guns, not quite nothing. It will stop a criminal from taking an officer's gun after the gun fails to go off.
No, it doesn't say they don't know the details of the hack, it says they're deciding if they know the details. If they do, then they'll release it, if they don't, then they won't. Granted this argument is kind of silly, but that's what it says.
IMO, if they were telling the truth about this, they would just give Apple what they know about the hack and let them deal with any missing information.
Even calling it in is intervening, and I wasn't so much referring to major situations, as little things. Like if the bike rack is full deciding whether or not there's enough space on the bus for someone to hold their bike, deciding if someone who can't pay should be allowed to ride, asking people who are being obnoxious to keep it down or get off, telling someone with a large dog that it needs to be muzzled to ride.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't drop a case when the other person is the plaintiff.
I'm of the opinion that campaign promises should require an oath given under penalty of perjury.
Where do you propose we find this outsider that wants to be President?
The emergency department is efficient because that's where people without insurance get their care.
If they decide that it is somehow against the laws that were in effect at the time of the transaction, they can apply it retroactively.
I imagine electronic, with the identification system failing, causing the gun not to fire and allowing the criminal to overpower the cop. The criminal will then leave the gun because it didn't even work for the person for whom it was supposed to work.
Social engineering is still alive and well though.
Rather than private bodyguards that should be Secret Service agents, unless you think we should also stop using them to protect former Presidents.
In other words, we need rules in place to prosecute them while they're still in office.
Will do almost nothing to stop criminals from getting guns, not quite nothing. It will stop a criminal from taking an officer's gun after the gun fails to go off.
Depends on my objective in quoting it.
If they did that, they'd be required to inform companies of the details of the holes in their security.
Won't handing out the pills just make the public think the plant is more dangerous than they thought before?
No, it doesn't say they don't know the details of the hack, it says they're deciding if they know the details. If they do, then they'll release it, if they don't, then they won't. Granted this argument is kind of silly, but that's what it says.
IMO, if they were telling the truth about this, they would just give Apple what they know about the hack and let them deal with any missing information.
They already knew it contained nothing of value, they wanted to set precedent.
So, since there wasn't any useful data on the phone and they aren't actually prosecuting anyone, they should be allowed to keep it a secret?
Unfortunately, I don't find any of those astonishing.
Rather than assuming no maintenance, you could assume the maintenance is included in the cost of operations.
I hate to concede a point on this, but throwing it in the garbage is potentially dangerous as the butt may not be completely extinguished.
Even calling it in is intervening, and I wasn't so much referring to major situations, as little things. Like if the bike rack is full deciding whether or not there's enough space on the bus for someone to hold their bike, deciding if someone who can't pay should be allowed to ride, asking people who are being obnoxious to keep it down or get off, telling someone with a large dog that it needs to be muzzled to ride.
I'd say they both recognized the Internet for what it is.
One other thing you won't get with an autobot, someone to intervene in situations.
Liberals rely on feelings, conservatives suppress them.
They've all been restricted to some extent, with attempts made to expand the restrictions.
The problem is that a lot of smokers think its a good idea to smoke anywhere they are allowed to smoke, regardless of who may be nearby.