The fact is, although the law is trying to follow the Constitution in disallowing discrimination, it also forces speech, and that part is unconstitutional. The law should be struck down, and the ACLU has no business trying to force compliance with an law with an unconstitutional part of it. If the "tell their story" part was removed, the law would be just fine, but not the way it stands.
Not to mention, I'd be good for letting people know, who are usually clueless about this sort of thing just how far there government is crossing the line and maybe enough public recognition will allow the people to do something about it, instead of being complacent.
Honestly, for games based on realistic warfare, I think some game companies should step up and make it happen. Not for censoring or restricting free speech, but for that next level of realism and immersion. But it should be up to each individual game company, and not the government.
I think it would be fun having a war game where you have to consider your actions carefully and be careful how close you get to crossing the line.
"What if the NSA (or CIA or FBI) manage to uncover a terrorist plot via methods it considers too valuable to expose? Does it allow the attack to proceed rather than jeopardize a useful surveillance program?"
The real question is, how many times has this ALREADY happened?
Good job poking the Putin with a stick. It's not like we were in a long, dangerously frightening cold war with Russia or anything.
Human rights activists are allowed in just about every situation there is, and it's usually the US pushing for it to happen. But now the NSA is butthurt because Snowden let their dirty laundry air, and thinks those same things don't apply.
Star Traders is one of the best games on the Play Store period, and Cory Trese is a genius. He's one of the few app developers on there that listen carefully to his customers and his patches frequently add new features and tweaks to make the game better than ever.
Google better fix this screw up or there's going to hordes of very pissed off paying customers at their throats, and I will be right there near the front of the line. I bought the game, and I'll be damned if Google is taking it down.
This is really only a problem for people that can't let go of DVDs. I don't even hardly watch DVD's at all anymore. When you are like me, and cut off $80 worth of cable, when I hardly watch it, and can watch Netflix on a relatively cheap wi-fi Blu-Ray player hooked up to a 1080p 42" HDTV, then paying 8-9 dollars a month for a huge selection is friggin awesome. I fail to see the point of the DVD part of Netflix that everyone is bitching about. Scratched up DVD's that can easily get lost in the mail, that may or may not play on your player due to arcane DRM, DO NOT impress me.
I know that I can't get everything Netflix has to offer with only streaming, but there's still a huge amount of content, and new things showing up all the time. Fuck Starz. I wasn't that impressed with their feeble selection anyways. There's a massive load of streaming anime on Netflix now, and I'm happy as hell about it.
I can definitely tell the difference between any mp3 and flac. FLAC is totally lossless and impossible to tell the difference from whatever the source is. As for creating a perfect FLAC from the source, you have to take all settings into account, including 16 or 24 bit (or higher), sampling rate, etc. Just using a higher level for one setting is not enough, it has to match the source, or you are getting loss.
I don't have the sound system to need higher than 44Khz-48Khz and there isn't a massive difference between 16 and 24 bit. If I got rich and had the cash to buy a sound system worth several thousand dollars, sure I'd rebuy. But that's more than likely not going to happen, so if not, I'll keep the 16 bit 48Khz FLAC cd rips.
I learned to use computers and write batch files in msdos when I was around 4-5 years old. In a few years I was programming and was a world ahead of even my grandfather who taught me how to use it. There wasn't much of anything but AOL and Compuserve at the time, but if there would have been some app spying on me at the time, I would have found it. Unless the parent is very tech savvy, this isn't going to work. Most kids today know far more about computers than their parents, and only the newer parents that are more knowledgeable about technology are going to have a leg up.
In any case, trust is important and you can't build trust by spying on your kids completely unwarranted. Then again, you can't be naive either and expect that your "little angel" would never do anything wrong. There's a happy medium without becoming as bad as big brother. Good parenting helps too!
Honestly, anywhere that has a distribution facility in that state, you generally end up paying taxes in that state. It works that way for many other companies, such as Newegg. Every state that they have distribution centers in pay taxes, and in those states it is passed on to the customers. This doesn't fit the governor's interpretation of the law that they need to have a storefront.
If other companies that have distribution centers have to pay taxes, so does Amazon.
You are correct on one point. Mentally ill people do tend to look to drugs to self medicate, mostly because the majority of Big Pharma drugs do little more than placebo. This may very well be the reason that there are some people that smoke pot and it can cause psychosis, because they were already predisposed to it. There's virtually no evidence to show that it can do the same to a mentally healthy person.
I'm not trying to prove what I'm saying as fact, I'm just saying if you try to match the studies correlating pot and psychosis with the sociological data comparing pot users to schizophrenia rates, there seems to be no real link between the two. Take it as you will.
Correlation is not causation. Just checking on the numbers of people that have schizophrenia (or other forms of psychosis) that has not significantly changed in the population compared to the people that use marijuana, which has increased exponentially, it's obvious that your argument is a fallacy. One study with skewed results, funded by anti-drug lobbyists does not make fact.
Nobody likes the tobacco industry. This still doesn't change the fact that Australia has no right to have part of their logo blocked out by the big honking warnings all over them and it is changing the way the logo looks. Therefore, you could consider it real trademark infringement.
I agree with you for the most part, Montezuma, but comparing marijuana to refined drugs is silly. Comparing it to raw coca leaves would be much closer. Coca leaves are pretty much safe, as long as you don't break down the components of them and refine it. And even that's silly, because straight up THC doesn't do any more harm than smoking weed (probably less since it doesn't have the carcinogens that you get from burning a plant.
This is interesting, mostly because I haven't thought of it before. But I really see no real problem with it. It takes an exact match to be usable in court, therefore consent has to be given by any family members tested, or warrants have to be issued if they refuse. So in truth, their privacy is still protected.
Not as if we have any real expectation of privacy, anyway.