Unless you voluntarily provides them that data by using their special browser.
Does not need to be if they want to be sneaky. Think of the OS as an office building. A browser app is an office in the building. If the owner wants to put surveillance camera right at all entrances of the building without letting you know, then it could happen. Illegal? Perhaps. Impossible? Perhaps not.
That's a nice idea, but the reality is usually that the rich people just move away when the poor people come in (especially the ones with families). No way are rich daddy and trophy wife letting their little girl go to school with that rabble!
Actually, rich people wouldn't send their kids to public school anyway. They either send their kids to a private school or home school their kids instead...
That's not true. I can put a pretty tight monitoring application on an iPad that doesn't allow it to use any TCP/IP except via.
Then you have to put that application in all 650,000 iPads. Would you want to do that?
That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all. So, no, churches are in no way tax exempt because they're churches. They're tax exempt because they meet the requirements of 501(c)3- just like the Sierra Club and the Humane Society.
I just googled for the requirement on IRS... They "separate" the link into 2 -- for charity ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ) and for churches & religious ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ). Interesting eh?
How would you propose the scanner automatically determine the gender of the person being scanned?
Remember when the the system was too obscene and display too much detail of human body? If it is still the same scanner (and I believe it is), then it is not a problem. In other words, I believe that the scanner can detect a lot more, and the software/system would be able to detect that. However, it would redacted the display into the current type of display (more abstract).
If they want to use high-tech equipment, they need to apply the right associated technology to it and stop cutting corner.
The software doesn't know by itself which gender it is scanning, so someone has to enter either male or female? What if an on-process trans-gender is walking though, what would happen? Doesn't sound like a good system in general...
“He related that when a male he finds attractive comes to be screened by the scanning machine he will alert another TSA screener to indicate to the scanning computer that the party being screened is a female. When the screener does this, the scanning machine will indicate an anomaly in the genital area and this allows (the male TSA screener) to conduct a pat-down search of that area.”
unless one of them shoots a guy in the back 8 times.
The arrest wouldn't happen still if there was no video of him shooting (i.e. using only the video from police car's dashboard).
Amazon believes so strongly that buying non-fake reviews does not harm the reputation of Amazon that they setup an in-house service to help sellers buy non-fake reviews http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... [wikipedia.org]. If tortious interference is occurring here, you've got the directionality wrong.
After reading the wikipedia, there is a different between the Amazon Vine and those 3rd party reviewing site if the 3rd party site review is to pay for good/bad review. The product owners pay Amazon so that their product would be enlisted for reviewers, not pay reviewers for good/bad review. The criticism is that the process is not transparent enough which could let to unqualified reviews (from unqualified reviewers but are still not a fake review).
Typical Progressive thinking is being evidenced by the article.
I don't understand why you need to label the article to a group of people? It can be anyone. Even though many progressive people are that way, labelling doesn't make things better in a discussion but rather try to find a scape goat to be blamed on. It is easy to do so, but it helps no one and does no good. Instead, you try to sway the point of discussion to accommodate your political opposition.
So yes, I did read that, which it was exactly what led me to wonder what the breakout was of each of those things. If it's primarily natural cyclical loss that will be restored why should I freak out again?
And natural cyclical loss may not be the primary cause currently in the TFA. However, the TFA goes further and states that natural cyclical loss could become a primary cause if this deforestation process with the help of humans keeps going on.
From TFA
Scientists expect wildfires to become more frequent as warmer temperatures afflict forested regions.
In other words, yes we should concern about deforestation on natural cyclical loss even though it is currently not the primary cause if less forest causes warmer temperature.
It's often misinterpreted, in the same way you so conveniently put it, which is then used to justify some pretty awful decisions regarding third-party libraries. I'm convinced that this is the leading cause of bloated software.
.
I believe 'goto' has been replaced by the 'if' statement. I believe that 'if' statements should be used very carefully.
I am not so sure about this statement. The 'goto' can be used for both conditional and unconditional branches. The 'if' statement, 'do-while' loop, and/or 'for' loop are conditional branch. If your variables are not dynamic, you may not need a branch.
Also in modern languages, you should not try to optimize or be too clever in how to style your code if the language has compiler because you don't know what and how compiler is going to modify your code. Yes, the source code may look discontinue, as long as it is clear and maintainable, it is a fair enough code.
Huh? Where are your citation links? That is a portion of the each bill that makes 2 bills look the same. They aren't the same if one has to interpret from the whole bill.
RFRA -- http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/r... -- under section 3 EXCEPTION (b)
IRFRA -- https://www.documentcloud.org/... -- under section 8
TFS says nothing about contracts, and this is slashdot so you have to assume that people will not RTFA. I blame the summary.
From TFA:
BRG is suing Facebook for theft of trade secrets and breach of contract, among other things, and asks for a jury trial. It’s seeking unspecified financial damages and an injunction to stop anyone using its technique.
It didn't say about signing, but BRG claims that they have established a contract with FB. It could be paper/verbal contract. Who knows at this point?
He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.
