Laws against conspiracy are not legitimizing arresting people for crimes they haven't yet committed. The conspiracy itself is illegal, even if that act being planned is never attempted, so a law has in fact been broken.
A very, very problematic law for certain, but still.
On the flip side, quantum computing would also allow crypto that is far stronger than anything we can make right now. Quantum computing would not make crypto worthless, it would just be a continuation of the back-and-forth game that crypto has always been.
It was those bugs and overlays that got me to stop watching broadcast and cable completely. Every so often I'll catch a TV broadcast at a friend's house or something, but those damned things have gotten worse, bigger, and more intrusive. I simply can't enjoy a show when that crap is going on. It's far worse than interstitial ads.
You could be right, but you could also be wrong. That's why we have courts. I do know that there are times when legitimate people carry large amounts of cash for completely legal reasons. I've carried in excess of $10k myself a couple of times without engaging in anything remotely shady.
"(your physical device) always has, and continues to this day to refer your unencrypted keystrokes to federal agencies long before you hit the "encrypt" button."
Compromised hardware can indeed do this, but you seem to be saying everyone's hardware is compromised and doing this. That's demonstrably untrue, unless the hardware is using some communications channel nobody knows about.
Lots of people, myself included, keep a very close eye on the traffic stream using standalone sniffers. The only remotely questionable traffic I've ever seen has come from operating systems and applications. I hear the same from many others who keep a paranoid eye on their traffic.
True, anecdotal evidence is not proof, but I don't think that matters in this sort of discussion. If there are people who find relief through pot that they don't through other treatments, that's plenty good enough for those people. They should be able to have their pot.
Although I drive, I spend more time as a pedestrian, so I hear you. What I think you want, though, is for drivers to be better at adhering to the traffic laws rather than red light cameras as such. There's a difference: red light cameras don't seem to have that much effect. Not surprising, since that's not their goal. Their goal is revenue generation.
The cameras appear to make the roads more dangerous, not less.
Re: Re: Re: This is not the Religion of Islam (Or Christianity. Or Whatever.)
"Should the rest of Christians "change their branding" because of televangelists ripping off the elderly? Or because of IRA and Ulster loyalist violence?"
From a purely marketing point of view, probably, especially if you include distancing from the more extreme fundamentalists. If they had, they would certainly be viewed in a more positive light by more people than they are.
Why the distinction between websites and ISPs? Because ISPs occupy a much more privileged position on the network.
That's not, or shouldn't be, the argument. It's not wrong, but it leaves out a critical distinction that the major telecoms are trying their hardest to get everyone to ignore. ISPs and content providers are radically different businesses. The rules governing each have to be radically different as well.
I haven't encountered a restaurant with this policy yet (excepting for the one that automatically charge gratuities for large groups), but if I did, that would be a restaurant that I would not go to a second time.
Automatically charging for tips turns it into something that isn't a tip at all -- it's just a garden variety price increase. A tip is an interaction directly between me and the people who provided the service to me. The business itself needs to stay out of it.