Apparently you don't realize that not every network is part of the public internet.
Aren't you forced to consent to breathalyzers at any stop while driving your car when you receive your license?
You are never "forced to consent" to anything. If you're forced, ipso facto it is not consent.
You can have your license yanked for declining a breath test. But that's strictly an administrative action, not criminal.
If you're not drunk, the cops have no probable cause to ask you to blow, so your lawyer can argue that, and you could blow a false positive. So if you're not drunk, blowing is not in your interest. If you are drunk, naughty naughty, but that aside you wouldn't want to give them evidence to use against you.
From what I have read and seen, you are best off declining to take either a "field sobriety" test or a breathalyzer test. Never consent.
That blue wall can't be sued...
Oh, it very definitely can. It takes a while but activist friends of mine sued successfully. Some sorts of suits have more chance of success than others, but suits over bad cops do win or get settled fairly often.
Is your assumption just because they could do it, that they are? Despite the fact that there's no benefit to getting DNA samples from random drivers but there is a huge time and monetary cost to do so?
If they are taking a cheek swab, they are already getting your DNA. That might not be what they are after at the moment, but they have your DNA, along with your license plate number, so they have a pretty good idea who you are.(And if they're checking your driver's licence, they know who you are.
The cost of storing that DNA, in case you should later become a person of interest or until the cost of DNA analysis becomes trivial, is minimal. Rather like the cost of storing data about your electronic communications. You're not interesting to them now, but you might be someday, and the surveillance state isn't about to let an opportunity go to waste.
...90% of cops are really great people that really are just trying to serve the public. But 10% are bad and the others cover for them.
Those who cover for the really bad 10% are, ipso facto, not "realy great". They are accomplices and accessories to the crimes they cover up.
A ban on "free" or "open sourced" software that doesn't have a corporation behind it. And a legal requirement that software only be produced by licensed and bonded "software engineers".
For the benefit of the reading-ability-impaired AC's posting above, let me extract the relevant phrases:
Mass-media influences cultural evolution [...] They cannot understand life, except as something that generates politics and "human interest" stories. [...] They [...] work to maintain our limits to growth since it places their skills at a premium.
Which is an interesting, and quite possibly valid, point.
I just don't see what it has to do with SpaceX or anyone else using Pad 39A.
The crawler - transporter is so incredibly cool. Something that big actually moving.
I see your point, but back in the day it was transporting something larger that would be moving orders of magnitude faster, straight up, seconds after lighting the engines.
(As an aside, there were originally plans for a Pad 39C, and the VAB was scaled to allow simultaneous stacking of up to four Saturn Vs. Sigh, the space program we almost had...)
There are so many things to explore right here, you disgusting navel-gazing autistic psychopath. [bold added]
LOL! Who is navel gazing, now?
While the Outer Space Treaty has some things to say about it (the Moon Treaty was never ratified, or even signed by many of the players), historically the rules of precedence for establishing claim over new lands has been:
1. First to spot it.
2. First to plant a flag on it (which historically implied setting foot)
3. First to set up a base or fort on it
4. First to establish a settlement (ie, permanent habitation) on it.
With "right of ownership" proceeding in the above order. Robotic flag planting as we've had since the mid 1960's might be step 1.5, which is where China is at. USA was at 3 for a brief time in 1969-72 (since the later Apollo missions had surface stays of several days) although disclaimed it with the "we came in peace for all mankind" verbiage on the landing plaques.
If/when China establishes a manned base on the Moon, is there going to be anyone in a position to argue about it (beyond stern words at the UN and threats to remove "Most Favored Nation" trading status) if they claim ownership?
This is high vacuum we're talking about. Lunar dust is just tiny rocks, they get kicked up and immediately fall back to the surface. It's not as though the dust is going to float for days (or even minutes) in the (virtually non-existent) lunar atmosphere. (Sure sign of badly written SF or shot-in-a-studio movie footage: dust on the real Moon doesn't cloud, it sprays then drops.)
Sure, the exhaust plume gases will stick around for a bit. That will give LADEE something to help calibrate its instruments against, since presumably the reaction products are known.
Who is more respectful, 1) The guy who is honest, even when it offends some women? 2) The guy who hides his true opinion in order to 'have a quality relationship'?
If his opinion is not respectful, neither of these hypothetical men are respectful or respectable. Sexist assholes are sexist assholes, whether or not they conceal their sexism.
That said, the purported "research" is gibberish, and I hope it is satire in and of itself. If it's not, then it deserves at least some gentle mockery. I don't know if "C Plus Equality" does that well, or if it's just juvenile dick jokes, but a self-publishing platform (which is what Github boils down to) shouldn't be in the business of making value judgments.
They don't always shut down the company.
Sometimes they just arrest the COB/CEO. You don't really imagine there was zero connection between Joe Nacchio of Qwest refusing to give NSA customer records without a court order (this back in 2001) and his being arrested and jailed for insider trading, do you?
(He may have engaged in some questionable trades but nothing that other corporate execs have done without getting hit with such severe penalties.)
The British (and the Europeans) have perfectly adequate laws against hate-speech
There is no such thing as an "adequate" law against any content of speech. Censorship is obscene. It's a shame that many British (and Europeans, and some Americans) don't understand that when you threaten someone at gunpoint (which is what an arrest is) for the content of their speech, you're doing thing much more evil than any speech can be.
...isn't it a bit pretentious for somebody not a citizen or residing within a given country to tell them they need to work at making their laws more like your own?
Boy, it sure was pretentious of citizens of other countries to tell South Africa that it should let Nelson Mandela out of jail and end apartheid. Or citizens of counties outside of China to express disappointment over the whole tank think in Tienanmen Square. Or, you know, the Holocaust, wasn't that an internal matter for German law to decide?
Seriously? Is that the argument you're making?