On Android, when you install a 3rd party keyboard, you'll get a notification about how the developer can intercept what you type (SwiftKey anyone?).
That's sorta how keyboards work.
If the keyboard can't intercept keystrokes (what you are typing), then the keyboard won't function. If it's not allowed to intercept keystrokes, it can't receive input from the touchscreen and then translate that into a keystroke (a, b, c...) to be sent to/from the application that's using the keyboard (browser, SMS app, etc.).
The problem arises when a keyboard app can:
1) intercept keystrokes (i.e. do its job);
2) access communications interfaces (bluetooth, 3/4/X/G, USB, thunderbolt, IR, WiFi).
Therefore a developer of the keyboard, in addition to legitimately intercepting the keystrokes, could also illegitimately forward those on through the communications interfaces.
Of course, there are legitimate reasons for forwarding on the keystrokes - cloud-based handwriting/voice recognition, and so on.
Or, you could draw lines through the bad part of the agreement, initial by each line, sign the amended contract and hand it to them. Unless they see you scribbling in it, they're unlikely to read what you did, and if they accept the signed agreement back and then give you service, they've accepted the contract.
Any such amendment made on the copy of a contract must be initialed by all parties. If an alteration is initialled by only one party, it is not a valid alteration and the unaltered contract is in force. Otherwise alterations could be made unilaterally by only 1 party after the contract had already been signed.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.
Saying "go find it yourself" doesn't meet the burden of proof on the person making a claim.
government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website
Because the former would require significantly more resources - manpower, money - and harm the political donations and kickbacks from a major industry - Hollywood - and embarrass more wealthy and powerful people - again Hollywood - than the latter.
While it would be a significant political statement from those providers, it would not be technically effective to prevent access.
They could just use the standard mechanisms that are advised for downloaders or geo-block defeating or people behind regimes like China's Great Firewall - VPNs, proxies, etc.
Of course, that could open up another can of worms. I seem to recall a case (details escape me, therefore I could be completely, utterly wrong) that was reported here on TD a while back, where someone was convicted, I think under the CFAA, for bypassing those types of blocks. The accused had received C&Ds to stop accessing a service and the IP blocks were then regarded as technological access control measures (so maybe it was the DMCA?), therefore bypassing them was a breach of something-or-other.
Any website that went over to requiring a facebook account to comment on I stopped visiting. Perfect example was Techcrunch, when they went to requiring facebook I stopped visiting entirely. Even after they reversed that requirement 2(?) years later, I still don't visit the site , with the exception of reading the articles there about their policy reversal, but apart from that I've never been back. I don't trust the judgement of people who'd make such a stupid decision in the first place.
I won't pretend that there are no potential conflicts of interest here, but under legal ease can "accept" be construed to also include buying something?
I think that would depend on whether it was finalised because he was president as opposed to because of the normal process.
For example, if a normal billionaire (is there any such thing?) offered to purchase something (a trademark, a national treasure - e.g. Mona Lisa, Terracotta Army, Tower of London, Ayers Rock, Yellowstone, Chichen Itza, Sphinx, Acropolis, Mecca, Kremlin, Valley of the Kings) but they are all turned down - except for a private purchase by a billionaire who also happens to be the POTUS. That I think might fall under the emoluments clause,
"bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified,"
agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified";
are not the same thing.
At the time the following actions were done, they were not regarded as terror attacks, but as militarily justifiable:
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
nuclear bombing of Nagasaki
fire-bombing of Tokyo
fire-bombing of Dresden
carpet bombing of various European cities during WWII
Therefore depending on how the question is phrased, some might and some might not regard the above as terror attacks, therefore influencing their answer.
Were the semantics of the questions asked of each of those groups the same? e.g. Were the questions couched in terms of the local languages, attitudes, definitions, understandings of the words? I mean, the quote you provided doesn't give the results in a common semantic framework.
If the volume of those calls are greater than normal background noise in that area at that time of day (construction work, trucks driving past, kids playing, crowds at sports events, aircraft flying overhead. etc) then make a noise complaint to the appropriate authorities.
If it isn't any greater than other same time-of-day noise, then what does it matter?