I've seen this before with the banks and ATM's. Initially the banks decided that ATM's allowed them to reduce their operational overhead by lowering the burden on their tellers and pushed to get customers using these machines. This worked out well for a couple years until ATM's became the de facto norm for money transactions then banks ushered in miscellaneous fees for the convenience of using an ATM billed under the guise of an added burdensome operating expense for having to maintain the ATM's.

I use Swvps been with them for three years now

$9.99
50GB drive space
1 GB guaranteed ram, 2GB burst
1000 GB Bandwidth

Their ticket response time is kind of slow but if you know what you are doing in linux it isnt much of an issue.
I would highly recommend either the Texas or California location. The Pennsylvania one is up and down all the time.

You might want to brush up on your bankruptcy law ...Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 does now allow for the discharge of student loan debt through bankruptcy.

Fail, It's upside down

Perhaps not. But the example is to highlight that any conversation, even those which are considered to be the most innocent, will never ever be exculpatory.

You are arguing a false dichotomy and the third axiom is the expectation of privacy from government intrusion.

Consider this scenario: Your neighbor dies a horrible death at the hands of the most gruesome killer. The police are pressured by the community to bring his killer to justice. In their dragnet, they listen in on your phone call to your mother in which you state to her that:

They haul you in for questioning and charge you with his murder. What do you think the testimony of the officers will be in court?

Prosecutor: "Officer Jones, was there anything funny about the conversation you heard between the defendant and his mother?"
Officer Jones: "Yes there was, He stated his neighbor died a gruesome death, but the newspaper had not reported that yet"
Prosecutor: "Was there anything else peculiar about the conversation?"
Officer Jones: "Ohh yea, he said he never liked the guy."

Open and shut, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Point being, even the most innocuous of conversations can be taken out of context and used against you and it doesn't even have to be due to malice on the part of the recollecting party.

Your analogy is confusing. Can I get one with cars?

The four companies that were smacked with this fine are:

Looks like either the majors are not engaging in this practice or too large of Goliaths for the FTC to consider throwing stones at.

And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense, all while the real perp is free to commit again. =/

Actually, your belligerent words may be constitutionally protected (although threats of violence not so much) Read: City of Houston, Texas v. Hill

Using your constitutionally guaranteed rights does not work so well at these checkpoints.

For North American readers, a "nappy" is a diaper.

You are still missing the point. It's not the Technical Standard that you program for, but quite simply the customers standards.

In most of my web development work it's always been the client that sets the standard. There have been some clients that have said "Support IE6 and beyond" (/cringe) and others that have more reasonable standards, e.g. IE7+, Firefox 3.5+, Chrome 9+