Somehow I doubt you know what treason is. No, it's not what your speculative interpretation of some single lines in legal documents seems to suggest. I guess, your idea of treason reasonably well fits this description:
Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents.
In the original definition, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are Third World countries too, as they have vowed neutrality and thus are neither allies of the NATO nor were they allies of the Warsaw Pact countries.
It had nothing to do with having democracy, as the First World countries Greece and Turkey, both members of the NATO, were ruled by military juntas in the late 1960ies and early 1970ies.
The DUP can an will not support anything that limits the free movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This forces Theresa May to soften her stance on immigration.
About any way to generate electricity is non-load tracking, with the exception of gas turbines and (within some limitations) hydro. So this is a non-issue, or an all-issue and not specific to wind and solar. At least wind and solar somewhat track load, because they produce more electricity during day hours than during the night.
You environmentalists just assume man made global warming is a certainty and there is no reason to discuss facts or the science.
There is always reason to actually discuss facts or science. But whenever I show a calculation that shows, the increase of carbondioxide from 1895 (0.027 percent) to today level (2017: 0.040 percent) can be solely explained by burning of about 75 percent of all the coal mined and all the oil pumped between 1895 and 2017, somehow the discussion stops.
It's a quite recent development to no longer penalize suicide. Not so long ago (some 50 years), suicide was a crime in many jurisdictions. For instance in the U.K., suicide was a crime until 1961.
The case is not about the privacy of the girl, the case is about the privacy of the people the girl talked to. If Facebook gave access to the girl's account to the parents, they would be able to also see the other side of the conversation.
This is only valid for the letters you received, not for the letters you sent. The parents have no rights to any letter the daughter sent to someone else.
While the parents have a right to look into the letters their daughter received as long as the letters are still available, they have no right to the letters their daugther sent. They can't just go around and subpoena others to reveal those letters.
Why should the other parties of the conversation in question even agree with a lawyer sifting through their conversation? They still have the right to Secrecy of their communications even if the other side of the conversation is dead. The court saw no necessity to do that as the parents couldn't sufficiently argue that there is enough evidence that the conversation may contain any vital information about the future death of their daughter.
(Beside that there is the question who should pay for the lawyer who goes through the whole convolut of the conversations of a 15 year old? It might have been hundreds of hours of work.)
The rights of the people the daughter was having conversations with. As the parents are no legal wardens of those people (probably mostly minors of the daughter's age), they have no right to look into their conversations.
It's not the right of privacy of the daughter, that the ruling was about, it's the right of privacy of the people she was talking to (probably mostly other minors the parents of the daughter were not legal wardens of). And those conversations thus are protected by the Secrecy of correspondence.
That's not exactly the gist of the ruling. The court decided against the parents, because the conversations of the deceased daughter contain private information of the people she was talking with, and thus are protected by the Secrecy of correspondence.
The main difference is that during a rent, all the risk is up to the person renting out the object. So if Tesla rents out a battery pack, Tesla has to maintain it in the usable condition agreed upon when signing the contract. Tesla does not rent out the electricity stored in the battery. You can recharge the battery whenever and as often as you like.
If Lexmark wants to rent out the toner cartridge, they rent out the actual cartridge, and still you can refill the cartridge whenever you want, and Lexmark has to repair it or replace it whenever it stops printing. Only if Lexmark instead provides "printing services" for rent, it's up to Lexmark to either refill the cartridges or put new ones in, if the old ones are empty.
You should be able to buy a "dumb pipe" data connection without any other service.
Here around this is called a "data stick". You get a SIM card and an USB stick, which provides an UMTS/LTE-connection to any device you plug the USB stick in. You can also put the SIM-card in whatever other device you want. My company laptop for instance comes with a builtin SIM card, so I can get online as soon as I have UMTS or LTE.
If you put the SIM-card in a smartphone, you can install any VoIP app you want to use it.
This is only valid for iPhones sold in the U.S. via U.S. carriers. In Europe, you can get an unlocked iPhone basicly everywhere -- directly at the Apple Shop.
You constantly ignore the problem. I don't talk about secrecy. I don't talk about rotation.
I talk about that a compromised security system has to be replaced or to be repaired -- whatever the breach was.
But you can't neither replace nor repair your own biometrics. Once they are compromised, they stay compromised. Biometrics rely on the fact that they are unique to one person. Once they aren't unique anymore, they lose their security feature. They can't be used anymore to reliably identify the person who once uniquely owned them.
Any pair of key and lock which is compromitted should be replaced. You change your locks once someone broke in your home, or someone has a key you don't trust any longer. You change your password once you notice someone was in your account. But you can't change your biometrics. So what happens to the locks your biometrics were the key to?
This answer assumes errorneously that I would consider biometric information a secret.
Quite the contrary! You can't replace your biometric patterns. They are an intergral part of yourself, and everyone with the means to do so can check them. That's why they are used to identify you. But if they can be forged, they don't identify you anymore, and there is nothing you can do about that. You can't get a new iris. You can't get new fingerprints. They are like a lock with a second set of keys you don't control. No one can identify you anymore with certainity. Your biometric patterns are burned and useless to you.
The CCC pulled a similar stunt with fingerprints before. They managed to get hold of the finger prints of the german Minister of the Interior at the time, Wolfgang Schaeuble (they got a glass he was drinking from at a public event). They made glows with the fingerprints in them. Then they got them scanned as their own and applied for a new biometric passport. Now they have a passport in their name, but with Wolfgang Schaeuble's fingerprints in them.
The general problem is still unsolved. If your iris and your fingerprint id are broken, how do you replace them with new ones?
That's the general problem with biometric identification. Once you can overcome the limits of the scan mechanism, and impersonate someone else, there is nothing the impersonated one can do to close the door again, until new scan mechanisms are in place which have to be fooled in a new manner.
Garzweiler is mined since the early 1980ies. Garzweiler I was opened in 1983 as a fusion of two mining operations started in the 1960ies. The permission to open Garzweiler II was given in 1995, and actual mining operations started in 2006, when the old Garzweiler I was finished.
Calling Garzweiler a "new" strip mine is somewhat of a stretch.
The same can be said for Hambach (not Heimbach). Ruhrkohle AG sought permission to mine in Hambach in 1974, preparation (removing the top soil) began in 1978, and actual mining started in 1984.
The Kraftwerk Datteln, which is the one mentioned in the article, was actually built between 1964 and 1969. It lost its operational permit in 2012, and the "new" Kraftwerk Datteln is actually not a new one, but just the replacement plant for the old one (and still not in operation).
Lignite is now so unattractive in Germany, that Vattenfall, until then one of the largest miners and user of lignite in Germany, sold its lignite business to the czech company EPH last September.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents.
(From Wikipedia)
If I am living in the U.S. without being a citizen, then I am just a taxpayer.
It had nothing to do with having democracy, as the First World countries Greece and Turkey, both members of the NATO, were ruled by military juntas in the late 1960ies and early 1970ies.
The DUP can an will not support anything that limits the free movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This forces Theresa May to soften her stance on immigration.
About any way to generate electricity is non-load tracking, with the exception of gas turbines and (within some limitations) hydro. So this is a non-issue, or an all-issue and not specific to wind and solar. At least wind and solar somewhat track load, because they produce more electricity during day hours than during the night.
You environmentalists just assume man made global warming is a certainty and there is no reason to discuss facts or the science.
There is always reason to actually discuss facts or science. But whenever I show a calculation that shows, the increase of carbondioxide from 1895 (0.027 percent) to today level (2017: 0.040 percent) can be solely explained by burning of about 75 percent of all the coal mined and all the oil pumped between 1895 and 2017, somehow the discussion stops.
Fuck you are you saying everyone including scientist are nuts if they disagree with the official global warming narrative wtf?
Yes, that's what we are saying. So what?
It's a quite recent development to no longer penalize suicide. Not so long ago (some 50 years), suicide was a crime in many jurisdictions. For instance in the U.K., suicide was a crime until 1961.
The case is not about the privacy of the girl, the case is about the privacy of the people the girl talked to. If Facebook gave access to the girl's account to the parents, they would be able to also see the other side of the conversation.
This is only valid for the letters you received, not for the letters you sent. The parents have no rights to any letter the daughter sent to someone else.
While the parents have a right to look into the letters their daughter received as long as the letters are still available, they have no right to the letters their daugther sent. They can't just go around and subpoena others to reveal those letters.
(Beside that there is the question who should pay for the lawyer who goes through the whole convolut of the conversations of a 15 year old? It might have been hundreds of hours of work.)
The rights of the people the daughter was having conversations with. As the parents are no legal wardens of those people (probably mostly minors of the daughter's age), they have no right to look into their conversations.
It's not the right of privacy of the daughter, that the ruling was about, it's the right of privacy of the people she was talking to (probably mostly other minors the parents of the daughter were not legal wardens of). And those conversations thus are protected by the Secrecy of correspondence.
That's not exactly the gist of the ruling. The court decided against the parents, because the conversations of the deceased daughter contain private information of the people she was talking with, and thus are protected by the Secrecy of correspondence.
The main difference is that during a rent, all the risk is up to the person renting out the object. So if Tesla rents out a battery pack, Tesla has to maintain it in the usable condition agreed upon when signing the contract. Tesla does not rent out the electricity stored in the battery. You can recharge the battery whenever and as often as you like.
If Lexmark wants to rent out the toner cartridge, they rent out the actual cartridge, and still you can refill the cartridge whenever you want, and Lexmark has to repair it or replace it whenever it stops printing. Only if Lexmark instead provides "printing services" for rent, it's up to Lexmark to either refill the cartridges or put new ones in, if the old ones are empty.
You should be able to buy a "dumb pipe" data connection without any other service.
Here around this is called a "data stick". You get a SIM card and an USB stick, which provides an UMTS/LTE-connection to any device you plug the USB stick in. You can also put the SIM-card in whatever other device you want. My company laptop for instance comes with a builtin SIM card, so I can get online as soon as I have UMTS or LTE. If you put the SIM-card in a smartphone, you can install any VoIP app you want to use it.
This is only valid for iPhones sold in the U.S. via U.S. carriers. In Europe, you can get an unlocked iPhone basicly everywhere -- directly at the Apple Shop.
I talk about that a compromised security system has to be replaced or to be repaired -- whatever the breach was.
But you can't neither replace nor repair your own biometrics. Once they are compromised, they stay compromised. Biometrics rely on the fact that they are unique to one person. Once they aren't unique anymore, they lose their security feature. They can't be used anymore to reliably identify the person who once uniquely owned them.
Any pair of key and lock which is compromitted should be replaced. You change your locks once someone broke in your home, or someone has a key you don't trust any longer. You change your password once you notice someone was in your account. But you can't change your biometrics. So what happens to the locks your biometrics were the key to?
Quite the contrary! You can't replace your biometric patterns. They are an intergral part of yourself, and everyone with the means to do so can check them. That's why they are used to identify you. But if they can be forged, they don't identify you anymore, and there is nothing you can do about that. You can't get a new iris. You can't get new fingerprints. They are like a lock with a second set of keys you don't control. No one can identify you anymore with certainity. Your biometric patterns are burned and useless to you.
The CCC pulled a similar stunt with fingerprints before. They managed to get hold of the finger prints of the german Minister of the Interior at the time, Wolfgang Schaeuble (they got a glass he was drinking from at a public event). They made glows with the fingerprints in them. Then they got them scanned as their own and applied for a new biometric passport. Now they have a passport in their name, but with Wolfgang Schaeuble's fingerprints in them.
That's the general problem with biometric identification. Once you can overcome the limits of the scan mechanism, and impersonate someone else, there is nothing the impersonated one can do to close the door again, until new scan mechanisms are in place which have to be fooled in a new manner.
Calling Garzweiler a "new" strip mine is somewhat of a stretch.
The same can be said for Hambach (not Heimbach). Ruhrkohle AG sought permission to mine in Hambach in 1974, preparation (removing the top soil) began in 1978, and actual mining started in 1984.
The Kraftwerk Datteln, which is the one mentioned in the article, was actually built between 1964 and 1969. It lost its operational permit in 2012, and the "new" Kraftwerk Datteln is actually not a new one, but just the replacement plant for the old one (and still not in operation).
Lignite is now so unattractive in Germany, that Vattenfall, until then one of the largest miners and user of lignite in Germany, sold its lignite business to the czech company EPH last September.