I had no idea nurses were so well compensated
the problem is that she's "a woman of [yours]" as in you own her, and don't see her as anything more than property.
since your blender functions just fine whether you pay attention to its emotions, you don't care if it exhibits emotions
that's the thing, marriage is financially beneficial under US laws.
it's also necessary for things like wills, and who can/can't testify against you, or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital
emotionally/physically, abusive, yes.
But how about a person who's suffered years of emotional abuse "knowing" their spouse is cheating without being able to prove it?
these tools can empower that person. Do we condemn the tool (ban cars/guns/cigarettes!) or do we condemn the people who use them immorally?
"if you feel the need to use data encryption, you're committing a crime"
"if you feel the need to own a gun, you're going to rob a liqueur store"
"if you feel the need to wear a seat belt, you're planning on getting in an accident"
arrest? maybe if you're well connected.
conviction? only if you can pick the right jury
...is that I need a warrant to keep track of my loved ones (in case they're a kid and get kidnapped, or they have dementia and are prone to wandering), but the government can keep track of everyone, all the time without any such permission?
if google had done that, they'd be criticized for not caring about carbon emissions
well put. A lot of "anti-gunners" say to "just call the police"
I usually tell them to read up on Warren vs DC (three college aged women got raped for 4 hours. called 911 several times, and had no response from police. because police are NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOU)
Good. As a libertarian, driver, voter, and not insane person, I understand that there needs to be SOME government regulation of cars. There is no reason not to try something to prevent insane people from getting cars. They're going to murder anyway, but a car makes it simple.
Ban high capacity assault cars- you don't NEED to go faster than 15 mph. You don't NEED to be able to haul a boat.
Why would you want an untraceable computer? I cannot think of any ethical reason
the F117 ushered in the stealth era (after flight surface control tech caught up with Ufimtsev's paper)
The talk, 'You don’t have to be the NSA to Break Tor: Deanonymizing Users on a Budget' by speakers, Alexander Volynkin and Michael McCord, from Carnegie Mellon University's Computer Emergency Response Team, had reportedly been highly anticipated by punters.
However, the talk was scrapped from the program because it had not been approved by the legal counsel with the university's Software Engineering Institute, according to a statement on the Black Hat website this week.
"Late last week, we were informed by the legal counsel for the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) and Carnegie Mellon University that: 'Unfortunately, Mr. Volynkin will not be able to speak at the conference since the materials that he would be speaking about have not yet been approved by CMU/SEI for public release'," the statement said."
Link to Original Source
i didn't get this sentence when i first read it, but now it makes sense.
basically you'd need a magnifying glass on top of this thing.