gdhbcc

If a court order said he had to confess, and arrested him for not doing so, would you say that is a lawful order?

And if not, what is the difference between being ordered to confess and being ordered to produce evidence harmful to yourself?

Courts should have the right to seek evidence, no one is disputing that, nor is anyone disputing the rights of the court to seek that evidence unmolested, but there is a difference between seeking evidence and mandating compliance.

As far as I am concerned courts should not have any right to compel any action, particularly specific action. They should only have a right to compel inaction. In short, the court can issue warrants that permit their officers to conduct actions that would otherwise be illegal, for example entering my house without my permission, and they may even compel me to stand outside and not interfere while they do so, but they should never be able to compel me to open the door for them.

Expect they are morally equivalent because morality is relative and individual.

I have to admit I'm curious as to why you prefer trackball, from my experience there is no actual benefit to it over laser, expect perhaps if you prefer heavier mouses

It is censorship though. Part of the job of the censor is to determine whether the likelyhood some information will be seen, justifies the censorship in question.

You can read the censor reports from the estado novo for example, and in many of them the censor declined to ban the book because even though it was objectively illegal, it would naturally be a book that wouldn't be sought after by the general public, and so only those who knew about it would look for it.

I'd say this is an even more pernicious form of censorship because you dont know what you dont know.

Yes. Additionally they should design their architecture in such a way that means they are unable to comply.

Given that the hack only occurred after the breach I would say no

Portugal got Cha by sea (through macau)

Id that were the case targeted das wouldnt be a thing.

So worst case scenario it does nothing, and best case scenario it protects against a common security risk? Seems to me it should be standard...

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned there is no reason why Google or anyone should ever even have access to the plaintext passwords, let alone log them.

There Is no reason why we can't have 2 rounds of hashing, one client side and one server side. This way even if Google is malicious, it cannot know the actual password.

Germany was not a monarchy during ww2. The Italian king fought for both axis and allies (and joining the allies was a big reason why he was voted out after the war). Yugoslavia was invaded by the axis, as was Greece.

I dont see how Lyft gets off calling this fraudulent. Seems to me it's the system working as intended, and as it should.

Drivers dont want to drive for under a certain value, so they simply inform the app who adjusts the value to fulfill demand. Seems like its what you want to happen.

I firmly disagree with pretty much everything you have said.

There is no evidence that intellectual property in any way increases production of works, and indeed there is plenty of evidence that inhibits it. See http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm for a comprehensive look at the subject. While I dont agree with their conclusions, the data they show is solid.

Information should be free. Humanity as a whole benefits from free access to it.

There were plenty of laws banning black people from Sitting on the wrong place in the bus, and yet if someone were to defend the jailing of someone due to violating that law you'd be talking about the injustice that was.

The law is the law is only an argument if you're willing to always take it to it's full logical conclusion, so my question to you was, if this judge was ordering you to do something you felt was morally horrifying, such as for example sterilizing someone without their consent (as has been done in the past), would you accept it and do it?

Better yet, do both

You go to prison forever

The argument is exactly the same though.

The argument being made is "infringing on peoples bodily integrity is ok if a measurable amount of lives are saved by the infringement".

I simply extended that argument to other things where we can measurably evaluate how many more people would be alive if we infringe on peoples rights.

Abortion is a perfect example because not only can we establish a clear upper bound on the number of lives lost due to it, but we can also save those lives through an infringement on bodily integrity in particular.

In short, if we can infringe bodily integrity to save less than 1 life a year, by mandating mandatory measles vaccines, then it stands to reason that all other similarly permanent offenses to bodily integrity are also permitted if they save 1 or more lives per year.

Sounds like the ideal scenario, no?

Or perhaps transmitting photographs on screen unlock that are used for image recognition

How exactly are they doing this?

Theres a reason why it was profitable, low labor costs

That kind of looks like throwing a darf, and then painting the bullseye after.

In any case, the Huawei Matebook pro x would seem to fit all but the default unix OS requirement.

I dont think any PC comes with any unix os by default, other than apple, but given the ease of setup I'm not inclined to view that requirement as anything other than a way to select what you wanted a first

Tattoos are not illegal in South Korea, neither having them or making them is illegal.

It is simply classified as a form of acupuncture and regulated accordingly.

Your first point is objectively incorrect. The EU copyright laws apply to every website/company, the only difference is small companies/websites have 3 years to bring themselves into compliance.

Learned helplessness is a thing, and a big part of what helps patients recover is reducing that helplessness.

It might seem rude and just pilling on someone who is already down, but from personal experience and from talking with nurses who deal with palliative care and care of elderly patients, a major indicator of whether the patient will improve or not has to do with how much they actually do for themselves.

My own grandfather for example was hospitalized for a few weeks after being blinded in 1 eye. For the first 2 weeks he continuously got worse, not because of his original injury, but because of the lack of motivation direction and drive. Eventually when my father noticed his nurses were cutting his food and feeding him, he put a stop to that with a "why are they doing that for you? You still got hands, so use them". It hadn't even occurred my grandfather that he could do it himself.

The government should keep no secrets beyond those absolutely necessary to ensure national security. Knowing how much each person pays in taxes is not a national security concern, so it stands to reason it should be public.

The company I previously worked for did pay for a bahn card for me when I was doing the Frankfurt-Bonn route twice a week for a few months

Until someone comes to power that doesn't like your particular ethnic group

Sounds like the company would do well to keep that employee happy then.

I don't see a reason why we should be okay with removing such powerful leverage from the workers hands.