It is illegal to destroy evidence of a crime if you know that it is required or likely to be required as evidence and you destroy it with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence.
Neither of those means quite the same thing as "the program knows your name." The first could be a reference to attribution, the second could be a reference to the program's name.
All google returns is a book that suggests that we are all guilty of three felonies a day and other results based on the book. Other than giving money to the author for his sensationalist title I can't find any way to verify whether this is true.
Well marked cameras placed in areas where they belong are a good thing IMO. However, I often disagree with cities on where they belong. They should go in areas with a lot of accidents resulting from excess speed and in school zones. I could also see temporary ones being put up in construction zones. Unfortunately, cities typically place them to maximize revenue rather than to improve safety.
On the other hand, that experience also makes it easier to screw over the taxpayers. I can't think of any good reason why a company would think it more important to look out for taxpayers than to look out for their own bottom line.
Your argument works much better going the other direction, but you don't see a whole lot of people going from high level private sector jobs to the public sector.
Slashdot Mirror
It is illegal to destroy evidence of a crime if you know that it is required or likely to be required as evidence and you destroy it with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence.
The hard drive "failed" and was subsequently recycled, there would be nothing recoverable after it was melted.
Then why wouldn't the Norwegian be able to subscribe to the US movie library?
I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, just that this is the way the contracts are written.
If this wasn't the case, then why wouldn't they be able to just allow people to subscribe as US citizens regardless of where they live?
Neither of those means quite the same thing as "the program knows your name." The first could be a reference to attribution, the second could be a reference to the program's name.
Netflix is obligated to give the appearance of enforcing its licensing agreements, it doesn't have to try to succeed.
If they're on holiday somewhere they should get the content for where they are, not where they subscribed from.
We have buried cables here, they get water in them.
All google returns is a book that suggests that we are all guilty of three felonies a day and other results based on the book. Other than giving money to the author for his sensationalist title I can't find any way to verify whether this is true.
Well marked cameras placed in areas where they belong are a good thing IMO. However, I often disagree with cities on where they belong. They should go in areas with a lot of accidents resulting from excess speed and in school zones. I could also see temporary ones being put up in construction zones. Unfortunately, cities typically place them to maximize revenue rather than to improve safety.
That would fall under the undercover operations clause.
Most small businesses are incorporated.
Most people on Slashdot are from the US. Australians speak more or less the same language so we care more what happens to them.
I would guess that most of those that pay are corporations that actually need that data.
Verizon and AT&T are far from the only two reasonable choices for providers of mobile devices.
On the other hand, that experience also makes it easier to screw over the taxpayers. I can't think of any good reason why a company would think it more important to look out for taxpayers than to look out for their own bottom line.
Your argument works much better going the other direction, but you don't see a whole lot of people going from high level private sector jobs to the public sector.
For growers that could be a problem, but for distributors you wouldn't need as strong a light as it would be for the sole purpose of killing bugs.
So they pay roughly a quarter of the total taxes and earn roughly half of the total income... I think they're underpaying.
On the other hand, the person who receives payment has to pay taxes on the overvalue.
Where do you see racism in his post? All I see is an accurate analysis of the racism that was shown by people in the past.
Isn't the lesson to use the best people regardless of gender? In which case, why should she go instead of someone more qualified?
It only works as an alibi if you can force them to admit that they know where your phone was and that it was at home.
The question isn't whether they are able to, it's whether they actually will.
And there won't be one until people start using something else.