Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
No, if I come to your house and I find a key under your flowerpot, open the door and enter am I authorized because the key gave me access? Clearly not. If simply having a password was authorization then not only every hacker (e.g. brute force) but every stolen ID would be "authorized". Just no.
North? I don't mean to be flippant about this but if you look at the history of mankind people have migrated due to physical needs from time long before recorded history. As the equator heats so do the northern regions, and that make those northern areas more habitable. You could say that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Problems at one part of the planet mean positive changes in another part. I know this may not be a popular idea but change is not always a net negative sum loss.
There are plenty of negative results due to a warming planet. Ice caps may melt changing the ocean levels and salinity, animals in areas may lose habitat. But it also means that crops can grow further north and those areas become more habitable. Of course migration does become a political issue but it seems to me that the migration issues that are extent today, caused by geopolitical reasons, are substantially worse than moving due to temperature change.
My point in all of this is that if you make a solvable issue sound insurmountable because you want to make a political point you weaken you position. Once they see you exaggerate in one area they assume you exaggerate (or make stuff up) in all areas because of your agenda. Be honest about the positive effects along with the negative and you won't have so many deniers.
Well, no. First you said you must pay tax on EVERYTHING. That is far from true and it largely depends on your state and area. Some states do tax everything, however most don't tax food bought in a grocery store (as opposed to restaurants which are almost universally taxed AFAIK) . Even there it gets tricky because they may not tax a bag of flour but some will tax soft drinks. Some states tax clothes (like TX), others (like PA) don't. There are many rules. Some states (like NJ) have areas that pay lower (e.g. 1/2) percentage in economically poor areas of the state. It's much more complicated than tax everything. Others add tax for counties, cities and even a public transit tax is added. All of this makes it not just difficult for remote vendors to collect but most people have no idea what they will pay when they ring out at the store.
In terms of paying the sales tax most states collect sales tax as a part of the income tax payment. That is when you pay your income tax there is a line that asks for how much you didn't pay in sales tax - the part that people skip. I live in a state with no income tax and I don't file to state - every. AFAIK there is no mechanism for me to pay sales tax on out of state purchases if I wanted to.
Oh, and Oregon isn't the only state with no sales tax. Delaware, Alaska, Montana, and Mew Hampshire also have no sales tax.
My reply was to Tochwiz, not other issues. I've used launchers, customer ROMs, and I have my phone rooted which allows me to delete bloatware. My point was if you like the hardware most geeks can have their way with the software - I know I do, so don't let Touchwiz stop you.
Honestly it's kind of funny that no one mentioned the worst thing about Sammy phones and that is that rooting them has become a nightmare. That is what will drive me to Nexus, not Touchwiz. I run App Ops which is the best thing you can do for your phone and your privacy. Add Titanium Backup and some Tasker functions and root is mission critical. Samsung (and the carriers) have been locking me down like an Apple user and that was why I went Android in the first place. So IMHO this thread should have been I'd buy Samsung except... root.
Are you sure about that? From the FAA website:
The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” Id. Therefore, although such low-altitude operations may pose a lower risk to aircraft flying much higher, the operation may still pose a risk to persons and property on the ground warranting enforcement action when conducted unsafely. See, e.g., Adm’r v. Kachalsky, NTSB Order No. EA-4847, 2000 WL 1072332 (July 24, 2000) (affirming a violation of 91.119(c) for operating within 500 feet of a dwelling in a sparsely populated area); Adm’r v. Beissel, NTSB Docket No. SE-19436, 2013 WL 7809754 (Dec. 11, 2014)
No, you can't shoot in a built up area. To hunt ducks (or any other animal) you need a hunting license and you need to follow local ordinances. Almost every town or city has an ordinance about discharge of weapons within the city limits. But the question is what is "built up". Many people live in rural areas and can hunt on their property. Obviously there was an ordinance against this, hence why he was arrested. He said that he fired into a safe space (not across a road or towards a neighbor's home).
But really that is not the question. The operator took his camera equipped drone and flew it low enough to peer under a patio covering. While I would not have shot it out of the sky I would have grabbed a rake or shovel and knocked it down. And I would have been the one calling the police and filing charges - as I hope still happens in this case.
Privacy is always an issue discussed on Slashdot. A camera flying in my back yard over my privacy fence is worse than most the things complained about here. What's next? Peeping in my daughter's window? To put it mildly the person running the drone was a jerk and they should be going to jail too.
Well, kind of - but you have to stop reading the slanted news from Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC and start going to the horse's mouth. Go to the actual proposal on whitehouse.gov and read it for yourself.
In it you will see that there is an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare (both government run insurance last I checked), a tax on those who are uninsured to cover then when they need public health care, and funding for "community health centers".
I am not commenting on whether this is good or bad (I think it has some of both) but you should know what is being proposed and to say there is nothing "government run" means you don't know what is in the proposal.