Most people who steal things feel they are the new owners. Ownership can be and usually is subjective. While not legal theft does transfer ownership in a might makes right sort of way.
To nowhere near the extent fertilizer is. Also ownership of firearms is a constitutionally protected right (firmly cemented as an individual right since Heller) where as purchasing certain types of fertilizer is not.
So suspicion is now enough to start denying people rights? They should have just locked him up regardless of the fact he had not yet committed a crime.
I pay separate line items on my bill for delivery and for consumption. Seems like the guys controlling the lines are getting paid no matter how little I use.
If they walk on to my property with the intent to look in my window, they better already have that warrant in hand otherwise none of what they see will be admissible in court.
Funny, I thought a similar thing about Private land when the logging company sued for right of way access across my property, then made sure to be assholes every time they drove through (speeding, forcing me off my own driveway, threatening me when I confronted them, and the police do nothing).
Public property does not mean it's use cannot be regulated (ie no thru-traffic, local access only).
I don't know what this means: Look, right now, many of these systems run Windows such as Bing
The idea of the US requiring a warrant get access to snoop through your inbox (it's not like they are capturing your email as it is traversing the internet) is enshrined in the fucking Constitution (or are digital writings not deserving of the same protections as ones on paper?).
Almost all emails sent from Gmail at least (probably yahoo and office too) are encrypted: "Gmail supports encryption in transit using Transport Layer Security (TLS), and will automatically encrypt your incoming and outgoing emails if it can. Some other email services don't support TLS, and therefore messages exchanged with these services will not be TLS encrypted."
You mean several courts have divergent opinions and rulings, and the Supreme Court has yet to take it up.
Heck the big one in the 6th Circuit says the exact opposite of what you claim. I mean seriously if your going to say something is settled you might want to look up some evidence to support your opinion.
No but they passed laws forcing the wireless communication industry to collect this data.
So now the authorities can get this information with nothing but a phone call, but 911 still can't get your cell phone location in an emergency.
But if i want to ON MY FUCKING PROPERTY I should be able to, I certainly don't want some people on the other side of the country deciding for me. That is my major problem with most modern OS's, they have stopped being operating systems for a general purpose computer, and started to turn my computer into an appliance.
It's my computer, no one should have access that supersedes mine.
"if you need to run windows on new hardware (Kaby Lake processors and later), you will have to install Windows 10"
Yep think about that, an operating system still in it's supported lifecycle can no longer be used on new hardware, not for any technical reasons but because Microsoft wants to make more money by having your OS serve you ads.
Cheaper? But they actually seem to be the only ones so why would they be cheaper, and as of right now there is no way to get your hands on one (notice no prices listed). They also look like renderings so I doubt the actual product exists yet.
You have?
Amazon has none listed, nor does Newegg, There are none on the Apple store, and only this story http://appleinsider.com/articl... about a Chinese company advertising them on their website with no way to actually purchase them. So while they may exist when the iPhone 7 launches, they currently do not seem to. Seeing how they will need to incorporate a DAC I don't think they will be as cheap as you think.
When it is the same KB number that you have previously hidden, and Microsoft has a history of not unhiding updates, their current policy of changing your settings for this particular update only are suspect.
Why should I have to deny ALL recommended updates just because they are ignoring functionality they themselves created?
No, I have actively taken steps to NOT install this update, including hiding the update so it does not get installed. Microsoft is changing permissions on MY computer without MY authorization. I have done my due diligence in not giving them permission.
In the 90's we gave the network providers billions to bring broadband to rural areas. They didn't do it then, what makes us think they will follow through this time?
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who steal things feel they are the new owners. Ownership can be and usually is subjective. While not legal theft does transfer ownership in a might makes right sort of way.
To nowhere near the extent fertilizer is. Also ownership of firearms is a constitutionally protected right (firmly cemented as an individual right since Heller) where as purchasing certain types of fertilizer is not.
So suspicion is now enough to start denying people rights? They should have just locked him up regardless of the fact he had not yet committed a crime.
Will this solve the problem of my BT headphones cutting out when my phone is in my pocket?
And this shows you why access to the source code is not enough to audit software.
I pay separate line items on my bill for delivery and for consumption. Seems like the guys controlling the lines are getting paid no matter how little I use.
Free market doesn't allow for state sponsored monopolies/duopolies.
If they walk on to my property with the intent to look in my window, they better already have that warrant in hand otherwise none of what they see will be admissible in court.
Funny, I thought a similar thing about Private land when the logging company sued for right of way access across my property, then made sure to be assholes every time they drove through (speeding, forcing me off my own driveway, threatening me when I confronted them, and the police do nothing). Public property does not mean it's use cannot be regulated (ie no thru-traffic, local access only).
No, they want you to use it because it will attempt to become your default SMS app and then they can access all your communications.
But why does it have to try to take over as my default SMS app?
I don't know what this means: Look, right now, many of these systems run Windows such as Bing
The idea of the US requiring a warrant get access to snoop through your inbox (it's not like they are capturing your email as it is traversing the internet) is enshrined in the fucking Constitution (or are digital writings not deserving of the same protections as ones on paper?).
Almost all emails sent from Gmail at least (probably yahoo and office too) are encrypted: "Gmail supports encryption in transit using Transport Layer Security (TLS), and will automatically encrypt your incoming and outgoing emails if it can. Some other email services don't support TLS, and therefore messages exchanged with these services will not be TLS encrypted."
Umm not really,
http://www.cnet.com/news/judge...
You mean several courts have divergent opinions and rulings, and the Supreme Court has yet to take it up.
Heck the big one in the 6th Circuit says the exact opposite of what you claim. I mean seriously if your going to say something is settled you might want to look up some evidence to support your opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/J...
Maybe the Senate will take up https://www.congress.gov/bill/... and we can resolve this once and for all.
Would you have a valid license for the same OS? Otherwise add $119 USD.
Except Linux is not UNIX.
No but they passed laws forcing the wireless communication industry to collect this data.
So now the authorities can get this information with nothing but a phone call, but 911 still can't get your cell phone location in an emergency.
"And you shouldn't indefinitely defer updates:
But if i want to ON MY FUCKING PROPERTY I should be able to, I certainly don't want some people on the other side of the country deciding for me. That is my major problem with most modern OS's, they have stopped being operating systems for a general purpose computer, and started to turn my computer into an appliance.
It's my computer, no one should have access that supersedes mine.
"if you need to run windows on new hardware (Kaby Lake processors and later), you will have to install Windows 10"
Yep think about that, an operating system still in it's supported lifecycle can no longer be used on new hardware, not for any technical reasons but because Microsoft wants to make more money by having your OS serve you ads.
Cheaper? But they actually seem to be the only ones so why would they be cheaper, and as of right now there is no way to get your hands on one (notice no prices listed). They also look like renderings so I doubt the actual product exists yet.
Not to mention those third part adapters don't really seem to exist yet.
You have?
Amazon has none listed, nor does Newegg, There are none on the Apple store, and only this story http://appleinsider.com/articl... about a Chinese company advertising them on their website with no way to actually purchase them. So while they may exist when the iPhone 7 launches, they currently do not seem to. Seeing how they will need to incorporate a DAC I don't think they will be as cheap as you think.
When it is the same KB number that you have previously hidden, and Microsoft has a history of not unhiding updates, their current policy of changing your settings for this particular update only are suspect.
Why should I have to deny ALL recommended updates just because they are ignoring functionality they themselves created?
No, I have actively taken steps to NOT install this update, including hiding the update so it does not get installed. Microsoft is changing permissions on MY computer without MY authorization. I have done my due diligence in not giving them permission.
In the 90's we gave the network providers billions to bring broadband to rural areas. They didn't do it then, what makes us think they will follow through this time?