Chrome, by default, won't even let you override the warning on Google sites (and possibly some others but I'm not certain). The Chrome security engineer in question specifically changed settings to allow it to load so she could have proof of the man-in-the-middle attack.
The federal government wouldn't be doing the infringing though. The infringing party would be whomever provided the copy of the code to the government from their own systems. That's who would be sued under this extremely unlikely scenario.
They'd still be able to do some spam filtering based on the header (which can't be encrypted if you want your mail delivered) but, other than that, they could do the full anti-spam filtering at the time of decryption.
As I understand it, it is. These releases are only extending the copyright 20 years from now not 70. Unless the EU decides to extend copyright again, these particular recordings should enter the public domain January 1, 2035.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-interest and a lack of spine
Concerning your every two year super election idea, the entire House of Representatives is elected on a two year cycle. Senators serve staggered six year terms and the President is elected every four years. We already, as a nation, vote for the entire House and one-third of the Senate every two years. I don't think adding the other two-thirds of the Senate and the President to that cycle would help much at all.
I don't know about Utah but, as someone who has just finished studying to become an insurance producer in Michigan there shouldn't be an issue as long as they don't discount the software for people who buy insurance. If their software is freeware regardless of the purchase of insurance it shouldn't be considered rebating.
I could see that working for the EU member country versions of Google for a day or so just to show the people what their governments are asking for. Of course, everyone would still be able to access Google.com to get normal results. The situation would have to get much worse before the pros would outnumber the cons for Google to do this though.
If you use an OTA antenna and access any of the networks that way, your category is already covered by Nielsen. In fact, I was in the same situation the one time my family's house was selected as a Nielsen house back when I still lived with my mother. It was quite an informative experience.
Unfortunately, Missouri is an 'at-will' state. Meaning that, unless your employment contract states otherwise, you can be fired without notice for no reason at all or for any reason not specifically declared as illegal discrimination under the law.
Here's a link to the bill itself, the language is a bit more precise than the articles I've read about it state. For example, it specifically states that the data collection must be without the consent of the people who the data is collected on and without a warrant or valid court order to trigger this law.
Really? This is wonderful news. My district borders that one and sometimes I had to deal with improperly targeted advertisements for this guy. Maybe this most recent load of crap is just to build him up for his future audience?
I'm torn. I'm glad that I don't live in Rogers' district (although, if we lose any representatives in 2020, my district might be combined with that one) because I don't have to deal with the people who would elect someone like that to federal office. However, I almost want to live there so that I could try to vote him out of office.
It's been a couple years since I was last on the roadways in the Chicago area. Have they increased the freeway speed limits from 55 MPH yet? If not, how didn't they catch more speeders? I've never seen anyone doing less than 65 (myself included) unless the traffic was horrible.
Just as a note for #1, the passcode check there is pre-boot so it can't be keylogged since no apps are running yet (they're still encrypted after all). As for #4, I don't know about iOS but Android's device encryption is open source.
The Constitution only protects a person from having the federal government (and after the fourteenth amendment, states governments as well) limit their speech. Contracts between individuals or between a person and a company/corporation have always been able to limit speech. After all, that's what non-disclosure agreements do. This is necessary just as there are laws prohibiting contracts from being enforceable if they require a party to break the law.