That would never be permitted in public stores, people would stop shopping in them or stop buying as much and rush out of the store sooner, destroying whatever advantage the store gets for erecting a "wall of ignorance".
What if there's a family emergency? What if your kid got hurt at school? You simply can't screw with mobile connectivity anymore, it's too important.
Yes but U.S. citizens still have their guns, the French dropped theirs ~60 years ago
Why wouldn't that be true of donors?
You don't think Wikipedia would feel similar pressure if the founder of Ebay decided not to donate because of a specific article on the site?
Yes but you've now seen the ! so it's NOT admin, we'll have to keep looking.
Those HP guys are clever.
Yea but you're talking about speech either way, and the first amendment applies to every level from the top on down.
There are millions of people angry about other laws, they aren't all filing lawsuits to challenge them.
This country (USA) needs to learn how to accept points of view that are different and find a common ground. This is why nothing gets done in Congress. No one can stop bickering and being intolernat long enough to do some damn work. That's not what we sent them there to do.
Another nice thought, but one that doesn't work in practice when one side is accusing the other of being agents of the chinese government, or admirers of Stalin and Hitler.
Some laws receive no challenges because no one is sufficiently upset about them.
That's the thing, it seems the only laws that get challenged are the ones that get certain groups of people pissed off. It doesn't mean there aren't sufficient numbers of people pissed off about other laws, but those other people seem to vote and contact representatives rather than stockpile weapons and pretend the country is turning into a communist regime.
I vote. I have written to my representatives.
What would you like me to do?
True, but the flaming crazies on the other side of the fence challenge the other half of things.
It all balances out.
No it doesn't, that was the point of what i said.
The supreme court is the one who set the "miller test", as far as i know that still stands.
That's a nice thought, but they aren't challenging "every little thing" the government does, they only challenge things they don't like, and there aren't a similar number of "flaming crazies" challenging other laws that other americans view as blatantly unconstitutional or imposing on freedom.
Take "obscenity" laws for instance, blatantly unconstitutional and yet those who oppose such laws aren't running around the streets casually with semi-automatic weapons or making references to "2nd amendment remedies" when things don't go their way.
If this were a case about a law requiring everyone to purchase a Bible, these same people would be actively supporting the law or at least remaining silent, because that's what they do, they only run their mouths and cry about freedom when it suits their personal causes.
We know all about it, doing something with that information is another issue.
Referring to this from the chrome os architecture pages
If verification fails, the user can either bypass checking or boot to a safe recovery mode.
That's the step where the system checks it's integrity. Google has said all along that users would not be forced out of their own devices by overzealous security measures.
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/security-overview
MORE closed? No, because Google has always said that users could get into the core os if they wanted to without resorting to exploits and hacking.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
