Golden Eagles and Bald Eagles are both rated "Least Concern" in terms of endangered species. They're not "rare birds".
So, no carbs, no protein, no fat - you haven't seriously tried losing weight unless you subsist on nothing but fruit and vegetables? Good luck staying healthy with that sort of diet.
There is no "proper" way to set up a website such that it can withstand an arbitrarily large DDOS attack. All you can do is throw more money at it until you have more capacity than the DDOSer does.
The expectations and limitations might be cultural, but technology shapes culture, just as much as the inverse.
Take tasers; yes, I'd much rather be shot with a taser than with a gun. The issue, of course, is that tasers are used in situations where people wouldn't resort to a gun, because they're promoted as "safer".
It's the same issue as this; I'm against allowing the state to use these devices because, while I'm not particularly afraid they will shoot my engine block out, I'm not so certain they won't use these ostensibly "safe" devices much more recklessly, due to their perceived innocuity.
No, but you HAVE had the expectation that someone can't point a device at your property and cause it to fry itself. Just like you had the expectation that someone wouldn't shoot your horse, pre-auto.
Driving a car on a public road doesn't somehow mean all your rights are nullified.
You have trouble with rational debate, don't you?
Yeah! The government should have the right to do whatever the hell it wants to you on public property. Get shot by a cop walking down the sidewalk? Should have been walking on your own fucking sidewalk. You were asking for it, bitch.
All of these are pegged directly to real gov. currencies and hence are legislated to be honoured as an obligation for cash exchange within the bounds of their own rules. There may be terms on maintaining balance/etc, but it's illegal to withhold payment if in good standing.
Not really; gift cards are considered to be debts to be honoured, not a currency. This was pointedly demonstrated to Australians who had Borders gift cards when they went into receivership down here. As part of their insolvency, they declared that their gift cards would only be worth half the face price.
You have entirely failed to prove your point. The OPs claim was that "No bank or financial institution will ever be able to do as much harm to a population as a bad government", not that banks cannot ever do harm. In order to prove that, you'd have to show that the Panic of 1857 was more harmful that attrocities
Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years and $200,000.
What actually happened, from the article: she thinks a colleague forged results, and spent 14 years and $200,000 voluntarily pursuing court action, which repeatedly found there was no wrong-doing. She was not fired, was not fined, was not imprisoned.
The summary's deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and imply that she was persecuted for whistle-blowing.
Obviously, this only emphasises the need for more surveillance.
That's due to selection bias. The nations that China won against aren't nations any more, and you therefore don't consider them when looking at China's war record.
That was always going to be true.
Persecution increases pressure, which drives evolution. Criminals are under a survival-pressure to avoid detection, which means they will actively be looking for/experimenting with ways to avoid detection. The general population is under no such pressure, and so adopts more slowly. I'm willing to bet that child pornographers, or other criminals whose crime is generally one of communication, adopted encryption before the rest of the general population, too, for the same reason.
They received 90% of their total income from Google. By any reasonable definition, they were funded by Google.
What obligations that funding puts them under is a separate question. There may be no strings attached to that money, but even so, it gives Google leverage, even if that leverage isn't utilised. The question is whether you can be considered "independent" when one of the main actors in the market has that much leverage over you.