Futurists decades ago prognosticated robot cars would suffer delays because lawyers would sue over crashes even though robot cars were statistically safer.
We haven't even gotten that far yet, and he has to rely on this rhetorical defense already.
You may own the car, but you do not own the software that operates it. The right to use that software is granted to you under certain conditions, of which this apparently is one. It can be revoked at any time, effectively rendering the car useless.
You may own the car, but you do not own the software that operates it. The right to use that software is granted to you under certain conditions, of which this apparently is one. It can be revoked at any time, effectively rendering the car useless.
Whose car is it? And you will reply something. And I will again ask whose car is it? Repeat until it js my car.
Rhetorically, any time someone objects that maybe the government isn't the best idea for something, these types always trot out roads, or police, or some other very basic thing that is 180 degrees and 4000 miles away from the subject under discussion.
I remember when Windows started denying user permission to delete system files, which made manual virus recovery impossible.
I have had to do 3 reinstalls over the years because I couldn't remove such files, and neither could the virus detector.
At one point I had the virus detector running in a loop removing what it could, which fought the virus to a standstill so the computer could be used, but some deeply-rooted thing kept reinstalling it.
This is all defined by the law to give companies like Google safe harbor from lawsuits for publishing or copying someone else's work. It still ends up in court if the original claim is pressed, but Google is off the hook.
This, by the way, is seen as spurring the great growth of a bunch of the Internet by US companies, allowing them to protect themselves. Many Euro and other countries allow good old fashioned suing of these sites. All this crap of news sites suing to get a cut of Google profits just for being listed in a search result comes of it, as one tiny indicator of what might have happened.
No company would have risked investment without it.
Here are some massive problems with Chrome for Android:
1. Big Brother live feeds do not work. They work fine on Chrome for Windows, or Puffin browser for Android. Make it work exactly like Chrome for Windows, with time machine and other functionality. Do not wait for CBA clowns, who just try to dump you into the even worse CBS app, which makes you view disclaimers with each cam switch. They are incompetent.
2. Chrome keeps forcing me to download mobile versions of web pages, and I have to manually select desktop reload. I cannot even change this as default behavior.
Why is this a problem? Because many "mobile" web sites think, for some godforsaken reason, that the excruciatingly limited phone real estate means put up an immovable, unclosable banner and menu line taking 1/3 the already insufficient screen space. On Washington Post, this can be upwards of 3/4 the screen with this useless space. Yes, you read that right.
3. The tiny button/touch rectangle size of many widgets means the wrong things are often clicked, leading you to a new page. Click back (as here) and boom, a big data entry is wiped as clean and spotless as Ivanka's ass.
Remember the contents outside the obviously flawed form fw/bw crap. You do this, quit waiting for standards or incompetent sites like Slashdot.
Ecuador cut him off iirc, not the UK. I am not even sure the UK could cut off the embassy without international implications, like water or electricity.
In any case, Ecuador could use satellite Internet if pushed. But that isn't the issue.
I agree about exposing politicians. But the reason for the 4th Amendment is at least partly to prevent those in power from spying on political opponents to put that info to use. If only one side "gets" to do this, freedom is impossible.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, and words can cause permanent neuroendocrine damage.
We're headed towards that -- where your thoughts become merely physical processes in your brain, and this becomes physical evidence -- bye bye Fifth Amendment.
The only question is whether the 5th will disappear before the 1st as people argue the bad feelings your words cause can be traced to the same physical brain processes, and therefore banned.
Bill Clinton complained of standard speech and payoff post-government hiring under Bush I and Reagan, and swore nobody in his administration would do it.
"Everybody does it" fails as a defense in that scenario. Not that it ever really works. It just makes it extra scummy and you feel like a little bit more of a fool than normal.
When the shit hits the fan, everybody runs to hide behind the US militarily, and everybody, including enemies, runs to hide their money in safe US dollars.
Complaints are akin to your kids being embarrassed you joked with the supermarket cashier.
Of course it is a con. He's doing the same thing Ross Perot did in 1992 -- running as a shock absorber for Republican disaffection to ensure the Democrat wins.
Perot even dropped out the morning Clinton was to give his acceptance speech, saying it was good the Democratic Party was "reinvigorated". He later got back in to split the ticket just in case.
Trump need not do this as he got the nom, though he threatened a 3rd party run. If he didn't. QED
Income inequality is a fraudulent measure anyway. One is concerned with the average person's health and wealth, which is the only legitimate measure of progress, if you actually care about the common man. Which continues apace, thank you very much.
"Income inequality" is warmed over, rewrapped class warfare, designed for political advantage, nothing valid.
Not only that, there were shameful anti freedom of speech laws found constitutional for many decades until as late as the 1960s. Is our erstwhile friend a fan of thise decisions over newer freedom of speech ones?
In the 1910s(?) the court approved a law outlawing pamphlets urging using legal means to resist the draft (for WW I) because speech stepped on Congress' power to raise armies. The opinion author (who came up with the phrase you have no right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater) disregarded his opinion within a year, andd said he was sorry for it. It wasn't overturned until the 1960s.
And there are some other approved laws he probably wouldn't look to judicial decisions for approval, either.
It would sicken me if mundane crime, or even terrorism, in this country, lead the way for places like China and Russia to have backdoors so they could continue with their boot stamping on a human face, forever.
It's healthy to assume nefarious untim proven otherwise with government officials. The Constitution was written with that as a bedrock philosophy. It assumes a full cesspool of power hungry people bent on twisting legal power to their own benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Futurists decades ago prognosticated robot cars would suffer delays because lawyers would sue over crashes even though robot cars were statistically safer.
We haven't even gotten that far yet, and he has to rely on this rhetorical defense already.
Let's see a car company disable your car for breaking their software license and see how long it takes for that to be outlawed.
You may own the car, but you do not own the software that operates it. The right to use that software is granted to you under certain conditions, of which this apparently is one. It can be revoked at any time, effectively rendering the car useless.
You may own the car, but you do not own the software that operates it. The right to use that software is granted to you under certain conditions, of which this apparently is one. It can be revoked at any time, effectively rendering the car useless.
Whose car is it? And you will reply something. And I will again ask whose car is it? Repeat until it js my car.
Rhetorically, any time someone objects that maybe the government isn't the best idea for something, these types always trot out roads, or police, or some other very basic thing that is 180 degrees and 4000 miles away from the subject under discussion.
I remember when Windows started denying user permission to delete system files, which made manual virus recovery impossible.
I have had to do 3 reinstalls over the years because I couldn't remove such files, and neither could the virus detector.
At one point I had the virus detector running in a loop removing what it could, which fought the virus to a standstill so the computer could be used, but some deeply-rooted thing kept reinstalling it.
This is all defined by the law to give companies like Google safe harbor from lawsuits for publishing or copying someone else's work. It still ends up in court if the original claim is pressed, but Google is off the hook.
This, by the way, is seen as spurring the great growth of a bunch of the Internet by US companies, allowing them to protect themselves. Many Euro and other countries allow good old fashioned suing of these sites. All this crap of news sites suing to get a cut of Google profits just for being listed in a search result comes of it, as one tiny indicator of what might have happened.
No company would have risked investment without it.
He might have made a first post years ago if he had tried instead of waiting 10 years first.
Here are some massive problems with Chrome for Android:
1. Big Brother live feeds do not work. They work fine on Chrome for Windows, or Puffin browser for Android. Make it work exactly like Chrome for Windows, with time machine and other functionality. Do not wait for CBA clowns, who just try to dump you into the even worse CBS app, which makes you view disclaimers with each cam switch. They are incompetent.
2. Chrome keeps forcing me to download mobile versions of web pages, and I have to manually select desktop reload. I cannot even change this as default behavior.
Why is this a problem? Because many "mobile" web sites think, for some godforsaken reason, that the excruciatingly limited phone real estate means put up an immovable, unclosable banner and menu line taking 1/3 the already insufficient screen space. On Washington Post, this can be upwards of 3/4 the screen with this useless space. Yes, you read that right.
3. The tiny button/touch rectangle size of many widgets means the wrong things are often clicked, leading you to a new page. Click back (as here) and boom, a big data entry is wiped as clean and spotless as Ivanka's ass.
Remember the contents outside the obviously flawed form fw/bw crap. You do this, quit waiting for standards or incompetent sites like Slashdot.
Ecuador cut him off iirc, not the UK. I am not even sure the UK could cut off the embassy without international implications, like water or electricity.
In any case, Ecuador could use satellite Internet if pushed. But that isn't the issue.
He's learning the downside of being no longer useful to unfree regimes.
I agree about exposing politicians. But the reason for the 4th Amendment is at least partly to prevent those in power from spying on political opponents to put that info to use. If only one side "gets" to do this, freedom is impossible.
It should not be one sided either way.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, and words can cause permanent neuroendocrine damage.
We're headed towards that -- where your thoughts become merely physical processes in your brain, and this becomes physical evidence -- bye bye Fifth Amendment.
The only question is whether the 5th will disappear before the 1st as people argue the bad feelings your words cause can be traced to the same physical brain processes, and therefore banned.
Don't laugh.
Bill Clinton complained of standard speech and payoff post-government hiring under Bush I and Reagan, and swore nobody in his administration would do it.
"Everybody does it" fails as a defense in that scenario. Not that it ever really works. It just makes it extra scummy and you feel like a little bit more of a fool than normal.
When the shit hits the fan, everybody runs to hide behind the US militarily, and everybody, including enemies, runs to hide their money in safe US dollars.
Complaints are akin to your kids being embarrassed you joked with the supermarket cashier.
Whoosh
Meanwhile, government committees are just about done finalizing the request for proposals to bring 2400 baud dial up to rural communities.
Of course it is a con. He's doing the same thing Ross Perot did in 1992 -- running as a shock absorber for Republican disaffection to ensure the Democrat wins.
Perot even dropped out the morning Clinton was to give his acceptance speech, saying it was good the Democratic Party was "reinvigorated". He later got back in to split the ticket just in case.
Trump need not do this as he got the nom, though he threatened a 3rd party run. If he didn't. QED
Income inequality is a fraudulent measure anyway. One is concerned with the average person's health and wealth, which is the only legitimate measure of progress, if you actually care about the common man. Which continues apace, thank you very much.
"Income inequality" is warmed over, rewrapped class warfare, designed for political advantage, nothing valid.
Not only that, there were shameful anti freedom of speech laws found constitutional for many decades until as late as the 1960s. Is our erstwhile friend a fan of thise decisions over newer freedom of speech ones?
In the 1910s(?) the court approved a law outlawing pamphlets urging using legal means to resist the draft (for WW I) because speech stepped on Congress' power to raise armies. The opinion author (who came up with the phrase you have no right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater) disregarded his opinion within a year, andd said he was sorry for it. It wasn't overturned until the 1960s.
And there are some other approved laws he probably wouldn't look to judicial decisions for approval, either.
Eye in the Sky
Another Big Brother tool for China and Russia to use to continue stamping on a human face, forever. No more "imagine" needed.
Of course not. Apple gets a kickback from Heaven by forcing you to get a new one.
Making involuntary instutionalization almost impossible was a gift from the left.
Getting rid of government funding for voluntary psych wards was mostly (state-level) Republican cost cutting.
It is debatable whether any self-radicalized Americans would be slowed by it, much less foreigners.
It would sicken me if mundane crime, or even terrorism, in this country, lead the way for places like China and Russia to have backdoors so they could continue with their boot stamping on a human face, forever.
Then don't buy Apple. Buy Android, like I did.
Dang, people. Freedom isn't hard to understand.
It's healthy to assume nefarious untim proven otherwise with government officials. The Constitution was written with that as a bedrock philosophy. It assumes a full cesspool of power hungry people bent on twisting legal power to their own benefit.