Don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... .

This.

You go out of state*, buy your Tesla and receive the title. You then either get a temporary operating permit to drive it home. Or load it on a truck. When you arrive in Michigan, you register the vehicle with the title documents in your possession.

*All done virtually. You do the paperwork wherever you want (in the Tesla showroom) but it is effective in whatever state you and Tesla agree on.

Yes I know, but throttling users who set poor limits is generally frowned upon and tends to hurt your fingers after a while.

I agree that there is pretty much no modern precedent for either withholding assent, or declaring war and ordering us to follow. I think it's far from cut and dry if it was ever tried, and might involve a tremendous amount of legal wrangling.

I find it sad that there is still any ambiguity about if Canadian soldiers would take orders from the Queen. We've been essentially sovereign for almost 30 years.

If we're not, then it's bloody well time we were.

To hell with the old broad, we're not still some fucking colony. The monarchy can go piss up a rope.

Writing a program that demands admin rights when it does not need them (eg. to put a lock file in the root of the system drive instead of elsewhere for a purely arbitrary reason) is even lazier.

Sometimes it's better to go after the root cause of the problem and get the developers that have been left behind to understand that it's the 21st century and their desktop software is likely to be running in a multi-user, networked, multi-core, 64 bit environment. There are far too many that can't even get ONE of those things in the list right which is a major part of why so many MS Windows systems are drowning in a malware swamp. We need to get away from the "we've always done it this way" culture of being acceptable when the way it's "always been done" only makes sense on single user systems with no network connection.

grant a specific whitelist of additional privileges to the users who need to use said application

So what do you suggest when that is all of them? Apart from of course trying various methods to convince the developer to learn how to do his job properly?

... no CLI then?

The monthly cost of a landline is cheap insurance in the event of an emergency. Cell towers go down, fail, become over-congested, and cell phone batteries die.

Not around here. I'm paying about $40 per month for a nearly bare-bones land line (only Caller ID). Even if I were on a $0.35 per text plan, I'd spend more money on that land line every month than I would on texting for ten years. Cheap, it ain't.

In the distant future, archeologists will unearth the food court on the lower level of our local mall and discover the altar upon which thousands of chickens were sacrificed to the god Colonel Sanders.

Sounds like a variant of a famous joke.

Operator: 911. What is your emergency?
Hunter: My hunting partner just had a heart attack. I think he's dead.
Operator: Go make sure.
[sound of a gunshot]
Hunter: Okay. Now what?

Really, you think that they have a DOJ and or any fed regulator problem???
Hmm...
Specific chip driver, designed for that chip only
Copycat chip using the above chip driver
Change the driver code slightly for improvement or whatever reason
Results:
Your system crashed, if it was using the fake chip.
Not the fault of the manufacture of the specific chip.
The liability goes towards whom sold that configuration to you with the promise of that specific chip. They lied.

I am guessing that this should be happening more often in the next 5 to 10 years, built in clones killing.

...and if their actions end up...

*sigh*

One, the cloned FTDI subcomponents are in and of themselves essentially indefensible.

Not necessarily. It is not a crime to use the USB ID of a competing product. It is a violation of the rules set by the USB standards body, but if you are not a member of that organization and have no prior business relationship with them, you are under no legal obligation to comply with those rules. More to the point, reusing a USB ID is absolutely not the same thing as counterfeiting. As far as I know, no country in the entire world has a law that says that devices are counterfeit merely because they conform to another device's programming interface. For something to be counterfeit, it has to be designed and marketed as the real thing, with the intent to defraud the purchaser.

What this means is that if the outside of the packaging claims that the part was made by FTDI, then the counterfeits are indefensible. However, if they were sold as FTDI-compatible chips, then the chips are almost certainly not in violation of counterfeiting laws. And if there's no way for the software to know the difference between those two, and if even one single device that was sold legitimately as a clone gets bricked, then FTDI is committing the crime of destruction of property. And if their actions ends up destroying medical equipment, they could be charged with even more serious crimes, up to and including manslaughter.

The reality is that in this sort of cat-and-mouse game, nobody wins, because everybody loses. It is vital that the authorities in Scotland take immediate legal action against FTDI to ensure that other companies are not tempted to pull similar stunts in the future. Their actions are clearly indefensible criminal actions, and should be treated as such, regardless of who fired the first salvo or how much harm they believe they have suffered at the hands of the counterfeiters.

Plus, they cancelled a hockey game. Canadians are lining up at recruitment centers for the chance to take ISIS down.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. She most definitely does have legal authority. Check your facts.

OK, I think you're full of shit, but if you have anything to add, go ahead.

Let's start with Wikipedia:

Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council. But the authority for these acts stems from the Canadian populace and,[8][9][10] within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited , with most related powers entrusted for exercise by the elected and appointed parliamentarians, the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them, and the judges and justices of the peace.

Or, how about this?

Why The Royal Prerogative of Veto (Withholding Royal Assent) No Longer Exists

Modern Justification

The website of the British monarchy explains on the page âoeQueen-in-Parliamentâ:

        The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn through regular audiences with her ministers. As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Government ministers. The Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707. [...][4]

That phrase that the Queen gives Royal Assent âoeon the advice of her Ministersâ means that the government organizes the scheduling of the ceremony of Royal Assent (just as the Canadian sources show) and advises the Queen when to grant Royal Assent â" not whether to grant Royal Assent.

In other words, if our government passes it, she doesn't have the legal authority to withhold assent. She doesn't retain veto power over our elected parliament.

It would be an exceedingly unprecedented scenario in which the actual monarch refused or vetoed our laws. If if she did, she would probably find herself overruled, because she really has no basis to override parliament.

The monarchy does not retain the legal ability to actually interfere in these things.

Name me one instance in the last 100 years in which the monarch actually refused assent on anything. I'm pretty sure you can't. Because her role is pro-forma and ceremonial, the things are done "in her name", but she really has no legal authority, and hasn't in a long time. And in no way can she do anything which violates our constitution -- her job here is to act as guarantor for it.

Even the governor general would need a pretty exceptional scenario to refuse assent ... because the GG isn't an elected entity, and doesn't have a lot of leeway to overrule parliament.

So, unless you can cite specific legal stuff which assigns her this authority, or can cite specific examples of her actually using this alleged authority ... I'm afraid you're talking out of your ass. Because when she is "the Queen of Canada", her role is such that she doesn't have the authority to overrule parliament.