Eugenia-nail-limp-bizkit-for-mac-computers-1920-x-1080-px
It must be - thus, they throw on insidious clauses like the detainment, and Obama is the lucky guy who just happens to be in the unfortunate position where he must sign it even though he opposed certain items.. I have yet to run into any real issues But I scrolled down this page while listening to Limp Bizkit's 'Take a Look Around'.. All the article seems to be saying is that Stallman seemed paranoid, and present events seem to justify paranoia.. One problem with software you don't have control over is that anything is subpoenable. HERE
If it is a law, such as one that is focused on the detainment of [whomever] then that should be a singular law stating under which circumstances this law shall be applied. Click
I think we are giving the government and Obama far too much credit for being stupid/naive/uncunning.. This article doesn't seem to give any examples of specific predictions Stallman made that have turned out to be correct.. It's easy enough to quote the transparency report, 'The number of user data requests we received increased by 29% compared to the previous reporting period. 3
But what I liked so much about this article was putting the slippery slope into perspective. e10c415e6f HERE
(Incidentally, people always feel that ) Can anyone give some examples of specific predictions Stallman made that seemed surprising at the time, but that have come true? I'm not saying there haven't been any, just that such a list would be more useful than this article.. I've connected many computers to off-the-shelf, un-modified, consumer TVs via DVI and HDMI.. Here is an idea: require all laws to be single subject, single focus If it is a funding measure, it cannot expand powers/modify any existing laws other than to either increase or decrease funding.. This is the number one source of corruption in the government, the ability to abuse the structure of the legal system.. Compare to three decades ago, and a lot of what's happening now seemed draconian then. 5
