And thus, "a well regulated militia. .
After all, if you're going to call up a group of people you need to have them registered and that is the last thing the NRA wants despite what the 2nd Amendment says and implies.
No, it's good security. Users do not need to have admin privileges so they can install every piece of crapware on a machine which isn't theirs or, if it is, poses a security risk to everyone else on the network.
Locking users down is good IT policy and fortunately, where I work, it is followed. You need something installed, put in a ticket with a justification. You don't need War and Peace, just a blurb on how the software relates to your job.
If you can't do that, you don't need it and most certainly do not need to be able software at will.
But it's okay if the woman smokes, drinks heavily, does drugs or is obese while pregnant, right? Slowly poisoning the unborn, creating a greater opportunity for malformations or birth defects is acceptable so long as we keep popping out babies, right?
People who say they want to stop abortions because they're protecting the unborn never want to talk about any of the above because then suddenly the government is getting into one's personal life whereas telling a woman she MUST have a baby isn't government intrusion into one's personal life.
As would my 2010 Hyundai. It has a key and the typical remote. No fob to get hacked, always able to get into my car even if the battery in my remote dies, don't have to worry about a malfunctioning fob.
There's a reason analog is still better for many applications. Keyed entry for cars should be mandatory.
I just saw that today at work (ad blocker not installed) when looking at a comparison of Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 on TechSpot. There I am reading the article and BAM! up pops an ad pointing to a keyword in the sentence.
I believe each page had three ads which I closed within 2 seconds of seeing.
Reminds me of the Futurama episode, Bicyclops Built for Two, where they go online and are bombarded by all the virtual ads.
Using your logic this is the same reason we shouldn't be giving to Israel. They can CLAIM the money isn't being used to throw Palestinians off their land or build more illegal settlements on Palestinian land, but, as you said, money is fungible.
Since they can use the U.S. taxpayer money given to them for other projects this frees up money for Israel to use in other ways.
But you know money is fungible and you do not want the taxpayers to pay for apartheid policies.
Here in the state of Pennsylvania our Governor has said no state employee may accept anything from anyone. Not even a pen at a conference.
If you attend some meeting where lunch is served you either have to forgo eating or obtain a receipt for the cost of the meal and reimburse the presenter. Even if there are only cookies and water, you have to get a receipt.
It's his effort to promote transparency in government but his edict has caused issues with people who are required to attend conferences as part of their professional development.
Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!