I had the same question. I don't wanna your tracking cokies and I don't wanna you draw strange pictures on my computer to fingerprint me. But when I click your link in backround thats not ok.
> But when I click your link in backround thats not ok.
Why not?
If you don't want bots clicking on your link you should put a captcha on it. If your link is publicly accessible, my background click is authorized by consequence.
About tge two buttons thing in factorys. The reason is, you don't have a hand in the machine. So it's not just two buttons, it's two buttons with such distance you have to use two hands. And, usually one of the two buttons, you have to hold in a middle position, if you push the button to much, it does also not work.
Something else, how many times, because of a bad mousepad, whole directorys got moved somewhere. Often you don't even know what you moved, so you can't even search. Special in my last company, we had for sure once a month such a "new" in our data.
The two buttons also make sure you really want to be doing what you are doing and are not doing other things at the same time. Perhaps multiple keys to launch the nuke would be a better comparison.
I did that drag and drop trick too. I don't even know what I did but a lot of system files and folders ended up on the desktop.
It isn't hard to imagine how features like this came to be and why the product was considered finished. We can obviously do better.
It's really sad the 432 failed, directly, because we didn't get to really see it, and indirectly, because it made almost all of our computers today to be based on horrendously kludgy processors with an architecture that killed wonderful things like Amigas, Atari STs, SGIs and so many other lines that had their lives cut short.
I wonder if anyone is keeping a list of all the times this has happened?
I know that its not something new, because 30 years ago when I was in law school one of the cases studied in my class on transnational taxation was that of an Australian group (if I'm remembering the right country...) that tried to buy every possible ticket in a US lottery.
My recollection is that they only ended up getting something like 90% of the possible numbers but that was enough to get the top prizes and questions arose on how that should be taxed and whether the cost of the tickets was deductible.
You're thinking of Stefan Mandel's International Lotto Fund[0]. They tried to buy every ticket in the Virginia state lottery in 1992. They won the money, but IIRC there were years of litigation.
As I said I was going from memory from a class 30 years ago.
Looking at the case again, I see that the dispute was on whether tax should be withheld in the US. The tax treaty between the US and Australia said that the US would not tax the winnings. The winners had filed the appropriate form with the IRS to invoke the treaty and be exempt from tax.
The state lottery commission automatically withholds federal and state taxes, and refused to make an exception for the Australians. The Australians sued and a district court issued an injunction to stop the state from withholding those taxes.
The federal and state governments appealed. The appellate court reversed and removed the injunction. It turns out there is a law that prohibits courts from issuing injunctions to stop tax collection (and withholding counts as collection) so the district court overstepped its jurisdiction. What you are supposed to do if you think a tax is improperly applied is pay it and then seek a refund.
Wow the other comments on this thread are all ironic, exaggerated, and misleading.
A little context is necessary.
“Up to” is worth emphasis. Even if in an extreme scenario a 5 year sentence was disbursed only up to 2.5 years would be in prison (and likely far less), automatic release at 2 thirds in the worst case.
When you are being attacked by a government prosecutor these "up to"s matter very, very much. It allows them to force the acceptance of inappropriate settlements by waving the (very real) possibility of these "up to"s in your face if you try to actually have your case heard in a court.
"Rise of plea-bargaining coerces young defendants into guilty pleas, says report. US-style negotiations for reduced sentences in England and Wales raises fears of false confessions and lack of informed consent"
In UK it is a crime to silently pray at your own home. It is a different culture, court decides who is a criminal. There are no civil liberties or constitution like in US!
The Musk headline was loosely tidied to someone arrested (whilst) praying *outside* and ignores the context of what was happening at the time, and for the many hours before the arrest. Minor details like that.
Happy to live in a legal systems where these devices are banned, and we can cross the road freely.
reply