Protestors should be able to protest up and until the interfere with my right to live my life. Non-lethal weapons would go a long way in keeping them out of my yard.
Again, I hold Kent State up as an example where non-lethal force would have benefited the protestors. Once dead, their said of the story can't be heard.
Non-lethal weapons would allow protestors to protest without getting killed. It is fair easier for a live person to argue their case in court than a corpse. The important thing here is to take away the governments ability to kill.
Only investment in African infrastructure will stem infections coming from there. Saved lives are the only payoff though, so doubtful the 1% will be willing to go for that.
Until a proper stun setting is found, it must at least be given up to law enforcement to for researching non-lethal means of control. Even the recent events in Ferguson demonstrate the desperate need here. And perhaps, when lethal weapons are done away with those who don't belong in law enforcement will leave?
...until connectivity is designated infrastructure citizens in that nation will be subjected to being nothing but profit creators for the powers that be. That is why I cheer for every business that requires internet connectivity to survive. One day access to the internet will be considered as necessary as access to roads, and it is only then that US citizens will have free access to the web.
Disagree. I just think that anyone who depends on something as esotoric as the law to keep others safe should be held responsible for all others who are damaged by their ignorance.
Most of the world knows that security is fleeting, and those that deepend on the law to preserve obscurity is the fleetingness of all. Do they not even consider that citizens of nations that don't give a shit about legal protections are the very people their customers need to be protected against? These companies should be paying rewards to anyone who can defeat their protections, not punishing them.
Even with my tiny less then 6mb connection AT&T continues to threaten to charge me more for exceeding their 150gb bandwidth limit. They are already sucking over $100 a month from me, yet they still want more. It is way past due for the entire U.S. to consider cruising the internet as neceassary as cruising the roads. This is required infrastructure as necessary to survive today as highways were 30 years ago. So many mundane tasks such as keeping up with current events and even paying your bills necisatate using the internet that considering it a luxory is really out of synch with the current reality. The internet as become necessary for everyone to have, so the internet must be free for everyone to access.
Taxing is done by governments, and governments must monitor if they are maintain control and stay in power. Paying a government a privacy tax would only further fund their efforts invade their citizens lives.
Any business depends on profit to survive, and there is no profit to be had in providing privacy...and certainly not privacy without a fee. A fee of course means a method of payment, and every method of payment is traceable to some extent. Even totally volunteer systems are no guarantee of privacy, as governments are certain to be the first to volunteer.
If the code is freely available and anyone who wishes to can flash their devices with it there really isn't an issue here.
Surely that would settle this silly dispute. Either the code is there, or it is not.
So you deny it was Reagan who drove the second parent from the home then? Name one major sociatal change in the last thirty years that enables the average person to support a family on one income. Hell, we can't even get a living minimum wage passed in this country. It's all about more profit for the profit mongers and nothing about the survival of the family. So for some it is the best of times, for others the worst of times.
And I believe correlation will be found with the lack of child rearing and the forcing of both parents working on the populace. Began with Reagan as I recall, and most certainly coincides with the continuos concentration of wealth in the upper class in this country.