Y'know, I already have a device that lets me see who's at the door. It's called a "window", and in over 50 years it hasn't needed batteries or an upgrade.
Strangely enough, I never see ad's when reading yahoo mail, but I use an IMAP client, not their lousy web interface.
Wait, what do you mean "Dark 'n Stormy" isn't a household name? It is in most houses I know, and would be with any competent bartender.
Anyway, mixing ginger beer with anything but a very dark rum might make something drinkable, but it won't be a Dark 'n Stormy, just as a Martini has only gin and vermouth.
The first mistake was friend-ing a coworker.
Or from me, I wrote my first real program (not "hello world") in 1975.
What people -now- call an API has been called different things through the ages ("interface", "system subroutine library", "library function", "supervisor call", etc) and has always been the recipe, not the cake. That's why you can take, say, FORTRAN code from one system, compile it on another, and it'll generally do what you expect.
"That phrase brings up a very specific period in history when one hears it"
and comes very close to, but does not activate, Godwin's Law.
I don't think this is the original reason; back in the 1930's the concern was about car maintenance and drivers, not congestion downtown.
I really wish people, and especially journalists, would not conflate terror and terrorist. They do not mean the same thing.
Terror (n)
1- intense, sharp, overmastering fear
2- an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror
Terrorist (n)
1- a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2- a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Someone might have a terror attack because of a terrorist's bomb, but the terrorist placed the bomb, not the terror. Unless Christie is suggesting that Paul address Congress about psychiatric bills for the sufferers, the headline is probably wrong.
Well, in the US it would be National Enquirer or Weekly World News.
They'll have a harder time of that because the 21st Amendment's section 2 and related case law basically gives states complete control over alcohol sales and distribution (but not of production- excise taxes, pure food laws, and all that).
Ref. the First Rule of Holes....
He lost the argument early on:
I'm also a strong supporter of people's rights to protect their reputation, which is also a First Amendment right
Cameras didn't exist when the US Constitution was written, thus with an Originalist view, they don't exist and won't be protected.
The word missing in the discussion here is jitter. If you need 3mbps to deliver SD video (which is horribly compressed at that rate), that's all you need provided the packets always arrive before they're needed. With a faster line rate, the system can burst a series of packets and then go idle (so the client buffers a bunch of data), but that only helps for the size of the client buffer. Increasing the buffer only makes the system less sensitive to delivery jitter.
Thinking back to Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987):
http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/headnote-of-the-day/hnod_11-11-13/
“Jordache” trademark for blue jeans was not infringed by manufacturer that identified its blue jeans for larger women with smiling pig and word “Lardashe” on seat of pants; striking dissimilarities in designs used in marks greatly outweighed any similarities, manufacturer intended to parody but that intent was not to confuse the public, and survey given by trademark owner did not demonstrate actual confusion.
I'd like to see the "Moron in a hurry" defense used in more summary judgement motions. Heck, should be used in more "You're kidding, right?" letters to clue-impaired complaints.
Exactly, It's pretty simple- if the government can find the porn, they also know what isn't porn (1 not equal 0). By that, it's a trivial problem to copy off the non-porn and set that back.
OTOH if they don't know what's the porn, then we have a prosecution problem.
I suppose Marriott would probably complain loudly if someone else set up a 'deauth' box in their facility.
The original "Riot Act" dates from 1715 (George I), and was read during/at the St. George's Fields Massacre (1768), the Gordon Riots (1780), and Peterloo Massacre (1819). Completely repealed IIRC in 1973.
About using cash- it's legal tender for -debts-, but you only own money to the store if they've already given you the merchandise. No merch. changes hands, no debt exists. (If the restaurant lets you eat before paying, there's a debt; if they want payment up front, there isn't.)
BTW, long time back, I'd give the RadioShack clerks the address "1600 South Beach St, Fort Worth, TX", which was Tandy's corporate headquarters. Only 1 in 10 clerks recognized it, an they just chuckled.
It should be pretty simple- if law enforcement wants to use the "pen register" order, they should only be allowed to use what a real pen register would produce: the number dialed. Nothing else.