Especially since the alternative is for the government to delegate the monopoly to another company. It's a monopoly either way.
Has anyone ever done a comparison of color vision before and after laser eye surgery?
Have none of these places heard of replacing a system piece-by-piece? Or agile development? You don't take a decades old system and replace it in one step. You replace it piece-by-piece. That's not trivial to do, but these stories about "5-year project cancelled with absolutely nothing to show for it" are crazy.
Have you ever listened to the audio chats of FPS co-op games when women are playing with men?
Have you ever listened to the audio chats of FPS co-op games when men are playing with men? I've heard straight guys who threatened to hunt down their male opponents so they could rape them and murder them just because they got their ass handed to them in a game. The usual response is to laugh, then shoot faster.
The rules are completely different when warrants are involved.
I thought the judged dinged them only for using the data, not retaining it. I am under the impression retaining it is standard practice. Is that not the case?
Who holds and filters the data in a civil case?
no more invasive than the long-established practice of granting a warrant to copy and search the entire contents of a hard drive
This "long-established practice" has always been a violation of the 4th amendment. The recent case where the US government used hard drive data from a *different* case is proof that they should not do this. They should never get the entire hard drive contents. A neutral 3rd-party should copy the drive, perform an appropriate search, then erase the copy. There's no reason for the government to indefinitely hold copies of data they should never have had in the first place.
Just imagine if they had a warrant to get your address book, but they kept a copy of every piece of paper in your entire home, just in case it became relevant later. There is no way that would be allowed. But the digital equivalent is somehow acceptable.
It's really stupid to think in numbers per-person when the problem is an absolute quantity emitted into the atmosphere.
I mean, just look at the data
You emit 1.19% of the total CO2 emitted by all countries. What are larger cuts on your part really going to do?
Australia's numbers are high because you don't have tens of millions of people living in dirt huts. Really want to do that? And the laws repealed were changing the number from what, 17 to 16.75...
Please make it moddable. I want a chainsaw on my wheelchair. Woooo!
Now why would I make WHeX WITHOUT chainsaws!
A chainsaw on every corner. The footrests? Both chainsaws.
And then of course there's the Tow Saw, which is a chainsaw tied to a rope that bounces around randomly as you roll forward.
Wheelchair Hunter eXTreme
You're sitting down. You could even sell wheels that attached to the side of office char armrests... and a gun accessory that tracked position relative to your body to match the virtual version.
Or, a Battlezone clone where you are in an open cockpit.
I don't understand why you Aussies think this even matters. Do you know how much carbon you guys produce next to China or India? A laughably small amount. You could start building factories tomorrow in the outback that did nothing but spew raw CO2 into the atmosphere and it would take you hundreds of years to catch up to China alone.
If CO2 is to really be reduced the effort falls squarely on large semi-developed countries like China or India. Even the US has already cut back as much as they can, and that without a carbon tax also... we just weren't as stupid as you to pass it to start with.
You guys are just wising up to the reality that carbon taxes are as much a ruse to make people money as anything else. Where do you think "carbon taxes" go anyway...
so a team of space enthusiasts has launched a more ambitious idea
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Thank you for quoting the text. I've never seen this before.
it says we are free from attacks to our reputation not that we are free from having our reputation harmed by ourselves and then reported by someone else.
If it said that then there might be more agreement. But that isn't what the words you quoted say. It has no such caveat. The only caveat at all is the word "arbitrary" which is a legislative weasel word. If it said "libelous" or "untrue" or something to that effect then it would not be debatable. It simply looks like it is poorly written, even if it is intended to mean what you say it is.
You do not need the skill to program. You just need the leverage to make someone who has the skills do it for you.
A programmer might be willing to do it for some large sum of money or to protect his family. Once it is done once, it becomes much easier to do a second time.
30 years after the original 1984 commercial the rebels have been co-opted and are now partnering with big brother.
In what way is IBM Big Brother any more? They have not been for a decade or more... if anything they are the Nerdy Brother, just hanging out on the side doing technical stuff while Microsoft gives them a wedgie every time he comes back home.
But in reality this pairing is to keep both companies strong against Google, not Microsoft.