Actually the law does see it as an expansion. The point wasn't about how the items were being stored at all. if you read a little more than just that sentence you'd see that it was about HOW MUCH is being stored.
When you can carry your entire home and 3 cars in a handbag, then maybe you'll have a point. For now, the exception only made sense because of the limited amount of stuff that was being searched.
Yes, but regulating the fact that you want to use a drone for business use vs personal use has NOTHING to do with regulating its "safe and efficient" use. That distinction seems to be completely outside the powers they've been given to regulate it.
Human language is by definition ambiguous. It is unfortunate, but you can't get away from it. Under most circumstances the ambiguity is not enough to cause that much confusion, but unfortunately sometimes the reader will have to put forth some effort to interpret based on the context.
Even if what you say is true (and you provide absolutely zero evidence that it is), the assertion you're trying to make is absolutely ridiculous.
Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few of its members is one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. Every group has members that don't follow that groups thinking and do dumb things. I could easily counter with examples of members of that group doing really great things.
Heck, I'll even step out there and admit that I'm a member of the LDS Church, and I've seen some members do some pretty terrible things that I abhor. I also recognize the difference between what someone chooses to do on their own and what the Church actually teaches.
When are you going to admit we have a real problem?
How about when you admit that you don't have the evidence to show that the very real climate change is being even significantly contributed to by us?
Just to be clear, I would love to have a good honest conversation with anyone about it. I would be happy if we could find proof of exactly what we're doing and what we can change that would help the planet. It's just that all I ever see are insults and hatred thrown about. That will never get us anywhere.
While I agree with the intent of your statement, your conclusion cannot be correct.
If the 4th protected all data about me no matter what, then many obviously reasonable things would suddenly become illegal for obviously ridiculous reasons. For instance, it would be illegal to track when I visit your store simply because it was information about me. It is reasonably accepted fact that anything you do in public is known by the public.
The problem with this case is that the information is revealing things about what I do in a place that is obviously private and personal.
Whether or not I can reasonably expect what I'm doing to be private is a reasonable and necessary interpretation of the 4th's protections. Now whether their definition of reasonable in any given instance matches ours is an issue that still needs some serious resolving.
Thank you so much for pointing this out! The thing I probably couldn't stand more than anything else is all the union workers acting like Uber drivers were horrible people for breaking an agreement they NEVER ENTERED INTO!
It also sickens me to see the unions using all this misapplied hatred to pretend that everyone who isn't part of one of their unions is somehow powerless and should unionize immediately. Unions can serve an important and valid purpose, but they are not the only way to empower yourself as an employee. The unions of today honestly stopped serving their employees the minute they started forcing them all to join just to work, IMHO.
The fact that usernames are not confidential is irrelevant. Neither are biometrics.
A username is meant to identify a user. That's exactly what biometrics are meant to do. Believing that a biometric is confidential is just inviting yourself to get hacked.
The problem I have with the push for biometrics today is that too much of the information people are basing their opinions on is assumption, not proven fact. The biggest two being that biometrics are unique to a single person (never proven true), and that they cannot be easily copied (proven false).
Despite their weaknesses, passwords are much better than any biometric.
If for no other reason the fact that I can change a password when it gets compromised or whenever I choose makes them better. Good luck finding a new biometric after someone gets all your fingerprints.
False, false, and soooooo false. It's these very wrong belief's about them that is creating a widespread security problem.
They are not perfect. In fact, it's common for them to even change over time.
Even if you did have a perfect capture of whatever biometric you're using, which actually rarely happens, the idea that they are unique has never been tested or proven true. It's just always been assumed, and security is not a place we should be assuming anything.
They are ridiculously easy to replicate. I can most likely replicate at least one of your fingerprints just testing your outside doors and car doors.
So, for this proven science that is so indisputable: could you please show me the scientific test that was used to prove that evolution could turn a creature into something completely different?
Without a provable process that is shown to produce the theorized results and can be repeated at least 3 times by independent researchers, all you have is a theory. It's a perfectly valid theory, but still just a theory.
Evolution is a scientific fact, but only in the sense that it can make small changes to adapt to different conditions. My issue with people arguing things like this is that when they want something to be true, it seems they too easily throw even their own scientific process out the window so that they can call it true.
The distinction here is extremely important. The fact that someone may choose to feel emotionally distressed by something I do (and it absolutely is a choice. That doesn't mean the choice isn't valid, but it must be seen for what it is) is never a sufficient reason to punish me.
The first amendment was particularly crafted with this necessary understanding. Indeed the whole point of that right is so that I CAN say things other people don't like that I feel need to be said. I should never intend to harm someone else, but I absolutely should be free to do things others don't necessarily like.
As for your example with the person who cannot recognize that what they're doing is wrong, that is correct. But there are other things we've accepted that need to be done to help both those people and those around them. While I have some serious issues with how far we sometimes go in terms of when it's ok/necessary to take people's freedom from them, that is one example where someone just honestly needs help.