In Kansas? Not the Taxi companies. You've got to remember, Kansas doesn't have much in the way of "cities", so the taxi companies are actually much poorer than Uber. It adds costs and complexity to their operations as well. Personally, I have no issue with this law. Professional drivers should have stricter insurance requirements than non-professionals. Remember, all it takes to be a professional is being payed for the action. That means Uber drivers are professional, whether they want to call them that is irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of assurance behind these random people carting around. (Besides, Brownback vetoed the bill, so it can't be too bad)
Real world example time.
If Tim Cook were to say he disapproves of gay marriage, would the Apple board of directors fire him? I honestly don't know. What I do know is, if he was fired, it wouldn't be because the board members personal beliefs. In fact, I'd bet some of the board members that pressured Eich to resign agreed with his stance. The fact of the matter is, having him as the face and head of the organization was costing them money. You can argue whether or not the boycott was right, but you would've made the same decision if you were on that board.
So, would Apple fire Tim Cook if he said he was against gay marriage? I can't say for sure, but given Apple's userbase, I bet the answer would be yes.
There were already holes in mine from 35. It did, however, ask for more after I updated.
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
You must be working from a different dictionary than me. Censorship is when something is deleted or hidden from view. There is no requirement on who is the one doing it.
If I decide not to say "fuck" in this post and replace it with "fudge", that's self censoring.
If a newspaper removes the word "fuck" from a letter to the editor, the newspaper is censoring.
If Google hides all adult content from view, Google is censoring.
If the Government tells a newspaper they can't run an article critical of it, the Government is censoring.
Only one of these things is illegal.
Just because Google is censoring adult themed websites doesn't make it wrong or illegal. You can't decide that a word means less than it does just because you don't like the connotations.
Why the hell would you hand a cop your wallet when all they need is your license?
Alternatively; "Here is how Google royally screwed up writing their OS so that updating even relatively minor parts requires a full OS upgrade while Apple and Microsoft seem to have figured out how patching works."
I disagree. Microsoft not supporting XP and Google not supporting 4.3 are two completely different things. 4.3, despite being two major versions ago was released less than two years ago. If Microsoft or Apple stopped supporting an OS version after less than two years, there would hell to pay. Why does Google get a pass just because they have a fast versioning scheme?
In rural areas in the US, there is no such thing as a local council. Roads are usually built and maintained by counties or townships, neither of which have much funds or interest for paving. Additionally, that section of land could be entirely private property. In my state a "block" on rural road is a mile square. If it's the same in the state his coworker lives in, and that "road" of theirs is within that "block", then it is a private drive and falls to the landowners to maintain.
Yep, they sure can. But if they try to use Japanese laws against American news organizations, the American companies can tell the Japanese courts to go to hell, which would bring the ball back to SCOTUS.
This is a scientific definition of life, so why the hell would we use the colloquial definitions of the other terms? They don't give a shit what you think the definition of movement is, so long as they are using the consistent, agreed upon definition.
I disagree. In order to be accurate you need to "censor" speech. Wikipedia has positioned itself as a reliable source of information. Even with a moderation system similar to slashtot's, the user would have no way to verify what speech on Wikipedia is accurate and it would quickly become useless. It works on slashdot because we realize that the user comments are just that, comments and we don't take them for accurate information. That system breaks completely in an encyclopedia replacement where errors and misinformation needs to be kept to a minimum.
The problem with that thought is, when they become contagious (symptomatic) then they'll need treatment. The thing is, unless you decide to just not treat them (mortality rate goes up) then the same people are at risk even with a quarantine in place. The fact that, even without mandatory asymptomatic quarantines, the only people who've gotten infected in the U.S. are two nurses that treated a symptomatic ebola patient. Quarantines are not necessary.
Quarantining people to ease public perception are a completely different thing, however. The public is a twitchy, panicky beast and we all know it. If pointless quarantines are what it takes to calm the beast down, so be it.
Nigeria had 9 deaths out of a total 20 confirmed cases. Not exactly 9 out of 10 people unless your concept of numbers is different than mine.
Short answer? Yes. Since he wasn't contagious during his time a the bowling alley, I absolutely would. Whether people would use the items in question is a matter of public perception, not safety. Even if he was contagious at that time, after the sweat dries, your chances for contracting it go down dramatically. After an hour or two, the chance is nil. Wet sweat from somebody showing symptoms? Maybe, but then again, I wouldn't touch wet sweat from a healthy person either.
I guess I'd have to not touch their bodily fluids for awhile then, huh?