Lunix hurrr durrr NSA secret hurr durr privacy hurrrrr
The only thing I can think of it the fine might be "per photo" while the permit is, say, as many photos as you like for the next X months.
In that case, the fine would very very quickly become more expensive than the permit.
It's not illegal to record them in those States. It is, however, illegal to record them without notifying them and giving them a chance to opt-out. (You don't need express consent, but you need to give them the ability to hang up the phone or walk away.)
What you consider "natural law" and what someone else considers "natural law" obviously differ. Maybe you should go to the Washington State Legislature and try and make your case.
My Lumia 1020 has one, I was wary at first, but honestly it's not a big deal at all. (Having one, that is. Lying about it on the website-- not good.)
It also takes better pictures than my dedicated camera, which is only a few years old. I think it's worth the tradeoff.
What changes have Microsoft made to Skype "for the sake of getting money"? I haven't seen any.
... and why does/should Microsoft give a crap about Japan?
Hell, the Japanese game development community is so inbred at this point, it's almost a compliment to be rejected by them.
It's also a heck of a lot easier when you're building a new plant from scratch.
The cost for Chrysler to convert an existing plant to 0% emissions is probably about the same as the cost of scrapping it and building a new plant from scratch. That's a lot of money for something that (most likely) won't translate into more than a few dozen car sales.
I've never seen a more blatant example of You Don't Need That in my life.
The reason people hate Anita Sarkeezian is not because she is a woman, but because she purposefully misrepresents facts in games
and posed as someone that enjoys games when there is video evidence of the contrary.
Why does this matter? You don't have to be an artist to criticize art. Roger Ebert seems to have become pretty well-respected considering his only film credit was Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
She lied to the people that financed her videos and then did not even deliver,
not to mention that it's such poorly made crap that a high school student could have done better.
Oh, well, that's certainly worth death threats. You've convinced me with this one!
I just finished loading a Windows 2008 server running IIS yesterday,
Before you selected the web server role, how many ports did it have open?
Just as a reminder, you yourself said:
When you load windows, it's NOT secure, you have to load other stuff to make it secure.
Windows boxes? They come out of the install process wide open with a whole raft of dangerous services turned on.
If that's true, and if you have recent experience of it, you should have no trouble at all telling me what part of your initial Windows Server 2008 install was insecure. Which dangerous services were turned on? You did this just yesterday, this should be a breeze.
Look. I don't believe you. Nobody who works with Windows Server would say the OS is descended from Windows 3.1. It's not possible for that combination of expertise and ignorance to co-exist. You're lying to me about setting up a Windows Server. I'm not buying what you're selling, buddy.
IMHO Linux is better, both historically (which even you cannot argue with apparently)
I'm making no argument one way or the other. I'm saying that's completely irrelevant.
and currently remains better.
Right, but based on what? Just your humble opinion? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Have you even used recent versions of Windows Server?
Because your extreme ignorance of it tells me you have not, and as a result your humble opinion isn't worth jack.
Windows 8 isn't a server. You're comparing apples to oranges, and being intellectually dishonest, and you know it.
The truth is: you haven't used Windows Server 2008, you haven't used Windows Server 2012, and you (obviously from your grandparent post) have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to Windows Server security.
And instead of just admitting as much and bowing-out gracefully, you pull the "hahaha you are wrong but it's a waste of time to argue with you!" card. Disgusting.
Ok your brain is broken in two ways here:
1. You keep talking about history. Nobody gives a shit which OS was more secure in 1986, we care which is more secure now. The question is, if I were standing up a server today, which OS would be the best choice?
2. You're redefining "Linux" to mean whatever happens to make it best in any given situation. Saying OpenSSL isn't part of "Linux" is both technically correct, and extremely intellectually dishonest.
To be perfectly frank: the grandparent has an extremely good point that you're completely ignoring. In recent years, Linux server security has been measurably worse than Windows server security.
The $80 package I have allows 10 video tracks, which is more than enough for me. I think I've hit the limit once in 100+ videos, and it was really easy to work-around. Without knowing what this guy is doing, it would be hard to say whether that meets his needs or not.
You can buy a basic version of Sony Vegas for $80, one-time cost. It does a *lot* for $80.