No they don't. The supreme court actually has something to say in Germany, and its constitution is pretty strong (also in practice) w.r.t. privacy and citizens rights. I'm not german myself (but living near germany). My impression, also from German newspapers etc., is that most germans including politicians are truely mad and are seriously considering to cool down relations with the USA. The USA is risking to loose one of the few remaining friends it has in the world.
It is the only one I know with plausible deniability (i.e. hidden partitions).
Java software development, running a few weblogic or other JEE appservers for testing etc?
At work we get slightly underpowered laptops, but with 16GB RAM.
Millions of customers being out of internet, might wake up some politicians.
Would be interesting in the light of the net neutrality discussions.
Times that policemen got respect automatically are over. The enforcement of unjust laws, such as most related to the war on drugs, undermines public respect for the police, at least amongst a large minority. I think that it the greatest danger of unjust or ineffective laws.
The best thing the police could do to improve its image, would be to advocate the abolotion of unjust laws, even if these provide them with easy money.
Fortunately, if there Is a real God, I suspect "he"s not going to be that hung up on whether his creations beleived without evidence or not.
Most religions claim otherwise. I think those religions that "survive" the competition from other religions (like an evolutionary process), are those that "procreate" well into the next generation.
Therefore, successful religions must force people (with the threat of divine punishment) to adopt the theory, like belief in god.
Religions that would not mandate a belief in god, and promise punishment to those that don't, would die out fast.
But some of these extensions are the reason for me to run firefox.
I may not complain if they don't work, but I'll stop using firefox too.
then the government transfer will either be somewhere between 90 and 100%, or if ower, a significant amount of the population will starve.
Long term joblessness is bound to go up to extreme levels, meaning we get a lot of spare time. I just hope a system will be in place to redistribute wealth. If not, future looks really awful.
Yes I discovered AUFS a while ago and it is really great.
I use it to backup to 5 disks (of various sizes).
Need to backup 10TB to a bunch of disks, but in the case of a disaster I want to be able to read individual disks without setting up a (software) raid array when restoring from an emergency. So I joined 5 disks of various sizes, 10TB in total, together with aufs and write to the aufs device. Aufs ensures that files are written on one of the disks, the one with the most space left.
Later I can take an individual disk and find part of all files on int, or put them together in an aufs-setup and restore in one go.
Raid-JBOD has the drawback that loss of one disk (in the backup set) means loss of all of them.
Raid-5 is more complicated and fragile for restores, and wastes 1 disk for parity, which is not required for a backup (the live system already is raid-6).
(and yes, I've got two backups).
5-10% of most mammals, including humans, are gay. That leaves more than enough people to procreate. What utter nonsense.
Would you also exclude or stigmatize priests or nuns? Or anyone that doesn't procreate for whatever reason?
Or the 0.5% of the population that have another deviation that obstructs their procreation, such as infertility? You want to stigmatize those?
Please think again and be very ashamed.
In addition, you don't need to be libertarian to find the idea of the government telling me what I may ingest and what not abhorrent.
Only massive propaganda (since 100 years) can keep up some level of acceptance for this concept.
Please stop calling it the war on drugs. It is a war on people that want to decide for themselves what they ingest, instead of letting lawmakers decide over my own body. It cannot be called a war on drugs, it is a war on people owning their own body.
I for one, will never accept that I am "allowed" to ingest alcohol but not other substances that I prefer and know to be less dangerous.
If justice wants to regain respect of the population at large, they must stop this.
In most western democracies there is a system of mandatory health insurance.
The reason is the same everywhere: we do not tolerate that in a civilized society people have to die just because of money. Any other society is barbaric in the eyes of most enlightened people.
You can either pay everything from the general budget (like the UK's NHS) or pay through some (often income-dependent) insurance premium, which has partially the character of a solidarity tax.
If it were not mandatory, you would have to fund it otherwise, like via income tax.
Do you really rather live in a society where people that have bad luck have to die so you have a bit more wealth?!?
I think 95% of all non-US citizens are appalled and shocked that this is even worth a discussion in the USA, and this is a sign of the extreme egoism and selfishness of parts of US society.
The red terror had a message for their 'own group' and wanted to wipe out their enemy. Just like Al Shabaab yes.
But the enemy for red terror was maybe 1% of world population, for Al Shabaab it is 90% or more.
Also the 'detail' of suicide has quite large practical implications. If you would assume any terrorist would always try to get out alive, lots of potential attaacks become much harder.
These two facts, especially in combination, make quite a difference.
So based upon a correlation it would be ok to punish people for something they didn't actually do?