I don't know why Android Security Model doesn't include the option for apps to request trading features for permissions. If you want to use cool feature X it needs location services. Or Feature Y needs access to your SMS/Contacts. If you don't enable X or Y, those features are not available.
Well, there is always Dire Straits "Money for nothing" which seems appropriate here.
No, it is ELITIST bullshit that they are spewing. Making blanket judgements based on what someone like Ezekiel Emanuel told them to say. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, they believe it, because they were told by someone who knows better than anyone else. And it is "better" depending on who you ask, just don't ask the patient, doctor, health insurance company or anyone immediately involved in your health care (lack of) choices. It IS better for the DNC as it provides a nice new entitlement to ensnare unsuspecting weak individuals into a lifelong servitude of voting for the candidates the Party Dictates they vote for.
Welcome to Soviet Amerika!
If people are willingly and intentionally running red lights, because of some sort of need to "beat the system" or whatever lame excuse, they need to be hit with a steep fine (one month cop salary) AND 40 hours community service. Make it painful to be in a hurry.
The above solution is enough to make it safer, idiots ignoring the rules of the road need to be caught, because they are the ones that are causing the problems. I have no sympathy for people's willful arrogance in situations like this.
DRM doesn't prevent anything in the long run. Eventually, people figure out instead of having to load a broken DRM version, you can go and Bittorrent a cracked version that isn't annoying. From the days of "Page 3, fourth paragraph, third word" (scanned manual) to the current versions, it has NEVER worked.
I understand, your point is it keeps the honest people honest. However, that is not the purpose of most DRM. If it were, then DRM would assume criminals would be criminals, but most DRM doesn't assume that at all.
The wiggle room I'll give the NSA and other "Security" Agencies is enough to make the noose around their neck comfortable, but not enough to take it off completely. What the NSA has done, is created enough wiggle room to take the noose off their necks, and put it on everyone else's necks.
They say they "only" collect Metadata, well isn't that fine and dandy! I'm in the industry, and given enough metadata, you can reconstruct the data you need, and often better detail than it was before. And in the case of Databases, metadata IS the valuable bits needed to form the surveillance state. Since the data being monitored and collected can easily be tied back to a person / group, you've done nothing except remove the data only one step away from being a breach of the 4th Amendment, and nothing else. The same intrusion happens, and you're not fooling anyone, except those that parse words very carefully. Like Clapper's famous "non-lie".
I would disagree with you, vehemently. The idea of natural rights is founded in our Declaration of Independence, enumerated in the clause:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Taking the foundation of our country, the right to establish a governance, and everything else that was listed in that Declaration, and saying that our Constitution doesn't have "natural right", is completely why they included the First Ten Amendments. If the law said we didn't have the right to free speech, and you're supporting ONLY the "law" (as your position indicates) then you have no "free speech" and it isn't a right.
It is people like you scare the crap out of people like me, because you think rights are allowed and/or established by law, rather than exist above and apart from the law. The moment you talk about "legality" when speaking to rights, you've lost me.
The first ten Amendments enumerate natural rights, and were inserted because of concerns of people like you.
I guess you missed the part where 6 Million Americans have lost their coverage due to ObamaCare already, and of the few that actually tried to enroll during the first two months, NONE of them are guaranteed coverage, simply because the website didn't function at all. Imagine, NOT ONE CUSTOMER is guaranteed coverage they think they bought.
Yeah, it is worse than two wars on Americans. Two wars had little effect on everyday life in America. Losing Health Care Coverage is a big deal to a lot of people. Sorry your bigotry against Americans is blinding you.
Given enough "meta data" you can actually construct a reasonable facsimile of what the data actually is. In some cases, it is more valuable than the data itself.
It isn't that they use the same "phrases" it is that the "source" of national news is boiled down to two or three News Agencies at best, and they are all reading from the same "script". The lefties don't like Faux news because they don't follow the script as much as they others. The righties don't like the others because they are patsies for the left.
And for all those that make fun of Faux, I have yet to see anyone make fun of the much more ridiculous MSNBC talking heads.
And to both, I say, get your news raw and unfiltered. Then you won't be fooled by the MSM attempts at propogandizing the news. And for a good example, during the DC Boat Yard shooting, there was more than one attempt to pin "Assault Rifles" on the shooter as the event was unfolding. Unfortunately, for the left wing agenda, there were no rifles used at all. In short, all news media is biased, some are just more open about where their bias is.
The thing about "Constitutional Rights", especially the first 10, is that they were including as "natural rights", because assumption of rights by government never happens. The first Amendment isn't a constitutional right, it is a natural right to speak your mind without government interference. It isn't constitutional, it just enumerated for clarity and so that government cannot ever say it isn't a right. Same with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th. These are rights, not granted by government, but are supposed to be guaranteed by government. IT is the duty of government agents to DEFEND these rights, not usurp them.
The moment a agent of government stop defending these rights, and starts infringing upon them, is the moment they have become a traitor and treasonous.
So, you still believe that McVey blew up OK City Building? Cute!
If you mine gold. You don't pay taxes on it until you convert it to currency. There is no way the Government knows how much you have, unless you tell them.
Oh, and ALL taxes are regressive!
The reason many policies were cancelled is because they were so bad they didn't pass the minimum requirements for policies under the new law
Elitist bullshit. I am so glad you can speak for everyone else, about every policy that was ever canceled.
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.
And, just to remind you, Hillary, and Company supported the wars. And saying she didn't know GWB was lying, that is just remember, her Husband was President and knew all about Saddam and OBL, so she SHOULD have known. But then again "What difference does it make!!!!!"