Are they providing a sensible version of GNOME? I very want to shuck Ubuntu, and this would let me have my Steam games *and* a usable desktop system.
(I know there are GNOME alternatives, but I'm hoping for the easy way out.)
Do you seriously think what GP described is a Usian problem?
It's sounds like the AC's problem to me, if the "vast majority" of his bosses are 'vindictive arseholes' then either he's really unlucky, or there's something about him that brings out the 'vindictive arsehole' in people. My guess is that the AC is a young male and as such will generally have problems with any authority figure. OTOH he has a point, I'm not going to light up a joint in the bosses office any day soon.
That's not what the NSA did, and US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones. Also, if the NSA is operating within boundaries set by other laws like the PATRIOT Act, which they were, then they're in the clear.
Blame the law and the politicians for poor oversight, the NSA is just a bureaucracy told to go do something without sufficient guidelines and oversight.
Several problems with this.
First, the NSA has swept up plenty of information about US citizens, e.g. in requesting phone records in bulk, and we only have their word that they're only interested in foreigners. Not that that legally justifies sweeping up people you're not allowed to look at without a warrant.
Second, James Sensenbrenner, the Republican main sponsor of the PATRIOT Act, has said that the NSA is far overreaching its authorization under the Act. It's very possible that the agency's interpretation of the Act is far out of bounds with its congressional intent (or possibly even its language).
Third, even if they did not go beyond the bounds of the law, the question of whether the law itself is constitutional isn't a settled one. Many of the provisions have been untested due to difficulty in claiming standing due to government secrecy about what they do with the information they've collected.
Fourth, the question of legality isn't the only one. There's also the question of morality, of hypocrisy, and of the dangers inherent to information asymmetry between the government and the people.
Fifth, absolving the actions of an agency (or any individual) who uses a lack of clear guidelines as an excuse to go as far into bad behavior as they think they can get away with is a terrible idea. It's the same sort of mentality that says, "Well, it wasn't illegal back then to rape your wife, so how could it have been wrong?" You wouldn't raise kids that way, and you shouldn't expect your government to behave responsibly if they know they can get away with anything as long as it hasn't been written down that they shouldn't.
Sorry! Should have referred to it by its now reinstated original (?) name, Bengalaru.
I have absolutely nothing against McD. In fact I would dearly love to go to Maine to try McDonalds version of a Maine Lobster sandwich (no kidding, I saw it on the internet so it must be true). I wonder if they are still making it.
He was arrested because of it, but not for it.
The title is "California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website." What is the meaningful semantic distinction that makes the use of "for it" improper here? He was arrested for activities core to the running of the site: privacy violations (the images hosted on the site) and blackmail (a major revenue source for the site). Just because he wasn't arrested for using the site doesn't mean that we wasn't arrested for running the site.
If he's going to bargain, he should probably offer something the police doesn't already have.
Plus, unless those people are mostly in California, it's far better to go with the big fish you already have than a widely spread trove of hard to reach minnows.
What's to fear? I cheerily inform folks that I do not believe in their particular sky faery. Should I expect violence? Condemnation? Whatever.
Well, to be honest, if you regularly phrase it that way, yes. No one likes having their beliefs in just about anything dismissively insulted, especially when it's something rather central to their life. That's less about religion and more about just not being a jerk to people you disagree with.
Try treating someone's home country or favorite sports team that way and see if you don't get a lot of anger directed your way too.
The statistics from Britain, where something like 30% Muslims want the UK to become a SA-like theocracy, speak a little different.
Apparently, you have a different definition of "most" if the 70% that don't agree don't qualify.
Thing is, it doesn't take an enormous amount of intelligence to drive.
Well, that explains the abysmally low accident rate...
Driver distraction is the number one cause of accidents. In your experience, would you positively or negatively correlate intelligence and distractability?
Flippant, joking question aside, it turns out that IQ actually does correlate with lower accident rates at a national level. It seems that the social conditions that promote greater intelligence in the populace (higher standard of living, income equality, a more polite society, greater individual liberty) are good for better driving.
On an individual level, it's more of a wash. Individual income and academic education level do not correlate to accident rates, and both are good proxies for IQ. The study found that it's more "emotional intelligence" (aka conscientiousness) and level of driver training that mattered.
(If you didn't read the article, basically it's how the Indian Govt., seemingly in light of Nokia's purchase by deep pocketed Microsoft, has raised the amount of taxes due from $300M to $3B)
I have no problem with any country imposing whatever taxes they want on any foreign entity wanting to do business in their country. That's what comes with them being a "sovereign" state I guess. What's sure to drive businesses away (and will keep me from bringing my modest company there) is when they impose such taxes/restrictions RETROACTIVELY as was in this and other cases. That's not to mention the lack of infrastructure, corruption, nepotism, and poor education there. (I have just suffered personally from this, I was in Bangalore two days ago where I got serious food poisoning from a McDonalds, evidently some people are cutting corners or aren't properly trained/managed).
I'm sure Nokia is rueing the day they decided to build their manufacturing plant(s) there. While apologists for this may say it's probably just a negotiating tactic, there's another word for it: extortion.
Say what you will about the U.S. and other developed countries at least they pay lip service to the rule of (hopefully non-arbitrary) law for decades (or maybe centuries like in Switzerland). Seen in this light, perhaps Google's decision to likewise stay out of China is a bit less mysterious. A prominent Chinese professor was fired from a top ranked Chinese university for calling on the government to follow the Chinese Constitution and adhere to the rule of law. Evidently he didn't toe the government line (as announced by the newly installed, not elected premiere) that requiring the government to follow their own Constitution was a plot by the western powers to weaken China. (I believe the government didn't even pretend, as in other cases, that this professor was bad at his job; he received generally positive reviews from student evaluations. Of course even if he was terrible, tenure should allow him academic freedom to speak his mind but hey, this is China).
Instead the Chinese government reserves the right to arbitrary use of power. So if you were Google, would you put a substantial technological investment there?
Thank god that Google (Android), Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Intel, Cisco, AMD and I almost forgot Microsoft, are American companies. Can you imagine what the world would be like if China had the power the NSA has? (I guess ARM is not American but their British so that's close. And although I'm American, I'm not remotely white, can you tell by my username?
The meat is not halal - requesting substitute. Mutton is preferred, but we can make do with beef if needed, just get it here fast.
Don't worry about the timing with the tomato - the boy has cut himself while slicing it, so it will take more time for him to finish the job than originally expected.
Plastic (and paper) cases have worked for ages for shotgun shells, which make far more useful and efficient homemade firearms than "Liberator" and similar single-shot pistols, anyway.
Slugs are trickier, but shell shot can be made from virtually anything that's hard enough. I suspect that glass balls would actually work, and would also make a serious mess of the target at close range, complicated by the fact that you can't later detect glass in the body via X-ray.
What else is new? A lot of firearms related law is very vaguely worded, such that the entire field is very much a gray area subject only to ATF interpretation of laws.
For example, a limit on barrel length. How, exactly, do you define that? ATF uses a method where they basically prescribe how to measure it, and the result of that measurement constitutes the length, but it is still somewhat variable. The way they do it is by closing the bolt, and then lowering a measuring rod from the muzzle until it hits the bolt face; the amount that is concealed is the length of the barrel.
Fine, but depending on whether the gun is cocked or not, the firing pin might or might not be protruding from the bolt face, and if it is protruding, then your measuring rod will hit it first. If your barrel is already near the legal length, this can actually push it over into the illegal territory. There is a persistent rumor (for which I haven't seen any evidence, so take it with a grain of salt), that it is precisely how ATF agents "busted" Randy Weaver when he modded a shotgun for them in a sting operation.
Basically, the laws as they are, turn ATF into an agency that is exceedingly powerful, because they can reinterpret a lot of laws by executive fiat in such a way that what was perfectly legal yesterday suddenly becomes illegal today - and the infringement of those laws is a very serious felony punished by many years in prison, and a reasonable suspicion of it is considered a legal justification to have a SWAT team raid your house.