All I have to say about that is where are you getting in for 7.25? Around here it's 10-11 for a matinee in 2D, more if you want 3D (I don't) or a later show.
However, in the market at the time it was enacted the business gained by doing business with the relatively poor blacks was offset by the whites that would refuse to do business at the same place.
While I agree that using it other than in the way it was intended is abuse. My point was more that the way this law was intended to be used is what most of us would consider to be abuse.
I see this phrase every time this sort of bill comes up where they claim that one group or another won't abuse the law. After some thought, I decided I agreed with their assessment. All this means is that the law is originally intended to be used in that way, if it's the intent of the law, it isn't abuse to use it that way.
I think if I ran an ISP required to provide censored internet I would use a whitelist consisting of the ISP's website. Attempting to access any other site, or even to get to your ISP provided email (someone could send porn to your children through it) would require opting-in.
Although if you think about it, most any habitat built on mars or the moon would be far cheaper and similarly effective for protecting humans on earth. (provided it wasn't in the immediate blast radius)
We don't insist that our accounting programs print us a receipt for everything. Why do we trust accounting software, but not voting software?
Because the people that write accounting software have a vested interest in it being accurate, while the people writing voting software (who may be the same people) have a vested interest in being able to control the outcome.
Aside from the problems discussed elsewhere, there's no money in it. People with money are more interested in a system that's efficient and manipulable.
Yes you need trust in a paper ballot system, but you get to choose who you're trusting. I generally trust the people around the ballot box to disagree on enough things that they won't let each other cheat.
Slashdot Mirror
I say drop the first one, otherwise no one will be able to risk suing a large company infringing their patent.
Would an OS that doesn't actually run count?
I agree that protesting in a relatively dangerous area isn't a great idea. I fail to see how the cell phone blackout makes that better.
Curtailing protest in the area may be a good idea, but why does that mean shutting off cell service?
All I have to say about that is where are you getting in for 7.25? Around here it's 10-11 for a matinee in 2D, more if you want 3D (I don't) or a later show.
So the needs of the passengers outweigh the needs of the corporations profiting from the scanners? Guess we'll have to get rid of them.
They theoretically need a warrant to enact the tap, but you'd be required to put the backdoor in regardless.
How about for bearing false witness?
However, in the market at the time it was enacted the business gained by doing business with the relatively poor blacks was offset by the whites that would refuse to do business at the same place.
Except this isn't about the proof needed to close the case, but the proof needed to open it.
My interpretation is that they used 'hack' the same way you do rather than the traditional sense meaning something more like building custom gadgets.
The explanation has already been given, he wanted the meetings to be secret so he wouldn't be killed while he was there.
Read it again, as you said they reported that he landed, but they did so while he was still en route.
I don't know, assuming they didn't die instantly I would guess that most of them were pretty anti-American when they died.
Which is why we have double blind studies.
They are representatives, just not of the people that voted for them. They represent the people that paid for their campaigns.
While I agree that using it other than in the way it was intended is abuse. My point was more that the way this law was intended to be used is what most of us would consider to be abuse.
Arrest is what happens when you object to being detained.
Actually, the difference is when you're detained you have to stay where you are, when you're arrested you go to jail.
I see this phrase every time this sort of bill comes up where they claim that one group or another won't abuse the law. After some thought, I decided I agreed with their assessment. All this means is that the law is originally intended to be used in that way, if it's the intent of the law, it isn't abuse to use it that way.
I think if I ran an ISP required to provide censored internet I would use a whitelist consisting of the ISP's website. Attempting to access any other site, or even to get to your ISP provided email (someone could send porn to your children through it) would require opting-in.
Although if you think about it, most any habitat built on mars or the moon would be far cheaper and similarly effective for protecting humans on earth. (provided it wasn't in the immediate blast radius)
Staring is only considered creepy behavior if it's done by someone on the blacklist.
We don't insist that our accounting programs print us a receipt for everything. Why do we trust accounting software, but not voting software?
Because the people that write accounting software have a vested interest in it being accurate, while the people writing voting software (who may be the same people) have a vested interest in being able to control the outcome.
Aside from the problems discussed elsewhere, there's no money in it. People with money are more interested in a system that's efficient and manipulable.
Yes you need trust in a paper ballot system, but you get to choose who you're trusting. I generally trust the people around the ballot box to disagree on enough things that they won't let each other cheat.