It might be helpful to note that he's not proposing a ban on gun ownership, rather that the individual states should be allowed to regulate such ownership more than is currently allowed.
Not necessarily. It may be that the bug was known to others and that Google and Codenomicon were both monitoring channels used by more nefarious types. Both organizations may have independently 'discovered' the bug after each becoming aware that an exploit existed without having full details of the exploit.
You'd think that all they do is sell papers, when in fact they collect and organize them.
Anyone that does serious research will have used specialist librarians before. Just because the data is out there and available, doesn't mean you're going to find it. Even if you do find it, it doesn't mean your search was efficient.
Of course the bill has a catchy name - Let Me Google That For You Act - but the author(s) don't understand that their proposal is to shut down The Google, not encourage its use.
You can always take the 'just stick to the speed limit' approach. It's also pretty effective for avoiding tickets.
Well pretty much anyone can start a lawsuit. But what damages are they suing for? Reimbursement of the purchase price?
If you're using it, you're agreeing to the license:
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE OpenSSL PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
* PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OpenSSL PROJECT OR
* ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
* SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
* NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
* STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
* ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED
* OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Now I am not a lawyer, and there are always folk looking for an opportunity to sue, but the license terms surely set them off on a bad start.
Doesn't free enterprise also include the freedom to enter contracts. If your contract with your landlord says you cannot sublet, are you arguing that the contract should be unenforceable?
As for the tax, we rely on a number of services that are paid for through taxes. It's fine to object to the bedroom tax, many hotel owners do. It's less fine to opt out of taxation.
Are you sure your sister has a chromecast? As others say, you don't need to keep anything open on your phone or tablet.
It would be different if she was casting a tab from a chrome browser on a laptop, or if you in fact have a Miracast dongle, also supported by Google as a way of streaming, but which would need you to keep the app open. Certainly that can be a pain, but again it's not Chromecast - indeed Chromecast seems designed to solve this major problem of Miracast (or Apple's airplay).
I imagine the developers at Mozilla who are willing to make these comments are the sort of folk who would be unemployed for approximately half an hour. If they start laying off developers for these comments, there will be recruiters parking RVs in Mountain View, waiting for them.
Google now incorporates things such as your search history and your emails to provided a customized start page.
So if Google knows you live in Atlanta, GA it will show you the weather for Atlanta. If you have a flight booked to San Francisco, you will also see the weather for your destination and confirmation of whether your flight is on time - this happens automatically if the flight confirmation went to your gmail account.
If you search for an address or store on your desktop computer, Google Now on your phone will be aware of this and will offer directions. If you have an appointment at your Dentist in your Google Calendar, your phone will remind you, letting you know what time you need to leave to arrive on time taking into account current traffic conditions.
It's a fair point, but at least Google gives you the means to turn this off. Also, you're getting something you can place a value on in return, so you can make a reasoned decision as to whether location services are a price worth paying.
All the same data is, however, still available to the government. And there's no off switch there.
Well, if you're looking for something that measures perhaps a couple of meters at best, and you're in a plane, high up and traveling at a cruising speed of 400 knots, it's pretty easy to miss something.
If you're in a submarine or a surface ship traveling at about 20 knots, with listening gear that requires you only have to be within 10 miles of the black box to hear its pings, I'd imagine that location process is comparatively straightforward and pretty quick if you can start close enough
Tl;dr : You must be batshit crazy to think that was legitimate without a court order. But hey, MS said so. Must be true then. Facepalm
So, you say they can't do it without a court order, but don't seem to address their statement that they cannot get a court order.
So what exactly is your proposal in these circumstances?
Link to Original Source
Okay, so the $100 begin doesn't work. REI have a $300 one that uses iridium with global coverage pour to pole. $50 per month for ten minute location updates.
Even considering the lie data capacity of iridium, I think it could handle ten minute location updates from the few thousand jets in the air at any one time.
At 35,000 feet on a jumbo jet, you're usually above the bad weather. If bad weather does appear, most pilots will fly around it.