Once again, creating a real world analogy to explain something a computer does is really hard, but here I go.
You have a lock on your door to your home, right? You go around and make sure everything is locked up at night before you go to bed.
Now how would you feel if you found out that every single door in your city has a master key that the police have. That key isn't just loaned out when needed, it's copied and the copies aren't expected back. If the keys are only given to law enforcement, it should be fine, right?
So after a bit of time there have been quite a few requests for this master key. Some guy over here is suspected of dealing drugs. That person over there is accused of kidnapping. That person across town has kiddy porn. A warrant is obtained in each instance and a copy of the key is made.
How often do people lose their keys? How much more likely is it to lose your keys as you add more keys? How easy would it be to steal this master key as more and more of them come into existence? How long until the key falls into the hands of a cop that isn't 100% loyal?
How much more likely would it be that some guy just screwing around in his basement manages to make this master key from scratch without any outside help?
Keeping every single lock in a city different means that if someone wants to break in, they have to start completely from scratch on each and every lock. Making one key means that only one lock has to be broken and suddenly they all are.
Granted, this is Hillary Clinton. Since she's married to a former president, she has secret service guarding her house. She doesn't have to think about locking her doors. She'd probably look at my analogy and just say "You should really get your personal guard on that."
I've been programming for a while now. I'm not good at it, but I have learned one important thing: sometimes you have to chuck the code and start again completely from scratch. This forces you to rethink the path taken that just did not work no matter how much fiddling you did.
The NSA Surveillance obviously does not work and they've had plenty of fiddling time. Senator Cotton is removing the one thing that might force them to rethink their strategy and come up with something that does work. But no. If they extend the surveillance then the NSA is stuck with it no matter what. Got to justify the money being spent on it.
2) You do realize that the people who did 9/11 came into America legally, right? Blaming the refugees for Paris would be like blaming the hammer if it was used as a weapon. The refugee crisis was just a tool, an excuse that the terrorists used. If there weren't refugees, those terrorists would have just had fake passports. Or, hell, real ones. It's not like they were worried about getting back home.
Back when Comcast first added the 250G cap to their Terms of Service, I checked how much data I was using. 400G that month. Don't even remember what I was doing back then. I wasn't torrenting and this was before I got heavy into Youtube and other streaming services.
I can only guess how much I'm using now since Verizon doesn't even count past 175G. They just tell me I'm using a lot of data and I might be better served by upgrading to their Quantum service.
It would be like a theater showing a movie and then getting pissed off by a person showing off home videos at their home theater.
The food isn't coming from the restaurant, it's not even being copied from the restaurant, it's completely home made. In fact, that seems to be the point. The restaurant isn't providing an authentic local experience, these people are.
I managed to get about 10 minutes in before I had to turn it off. But even the first five minutes of the movie gave me a really strong opinion.
If this doesn't qualify as a transformative work, fucking nothing does. Completely different vibe, completely different felling. It's almost a different story.
The only reason I had to stop was because of the dialog. The fact that they still spoke we just couldn't hear them just turned me off to the thing. If whoever created it put more effort into removing those parts, it would have been epic (I know they had limited film to work with).
I wonder what George Miller thinks of this. I bet he'd be proud.
The law states that you're not allowed to drive a vehicle out of code. If a cop finds your vehicle is out of code (broken lights, broken windshield, spewing black smoke...), you get fined and probably your car gets towed.
So, yes, it would be illegal and immoral. The question is would they catch you doing it. Probably not as the garage would have to check software version numbers and they more than likely don't have that ability.
So at this point it's accepted that the NSA phone records collection is unconstitutional, but the appeals court will not enforce the ruling until someone steps forward with absolute proof that they specifically are being spied upon. Of course any evidence that could be brought up will be suppressed due to "National Security".
The appeals court leaves it open that Verizon could sue, but I'd bet that Verizon has NSLs that expressly forbid presenting any form of real evidence. Plus, Verizon existence depends on a government granted monopoly. Verizon fights this and all of a sudden good Net Neutrality laws start getting passed.
You might want to elaborate on that as there doesn't seem to be anything relating to the article in the Wikipedia page. No lawsuits or political pressure, just some guy exercising his First Amendment rights and seemingly being left alone for doing it.
I agree that this is a stupid idea, but isn't this even more stupid than you give it credit for? Patents last 20 years, this idiocy would last for 5 (or 12). What are they going to do, patent the drug and not do the clinical trials required to sell the drug until the patent is almost up?
If anything, this is a ploy. Sneak something in that can easily be shrugged off and they can extend quietly in the future. The TPP negotiators are being played (or played with depending on if they know or not.)
There was a recall on Jeep Libertys a few years ago because the gas tank can leak in rear end collisions. But according to you they shouldn't have had to had the recall since it was only a safety concern if someone rear ends the vehicle.
I don't think you know what the term "safety concern" means.