The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted
Let's say I agree to be fingerprinted. That means I'll let them put the ink on my fingers and I'll press my fingers against the paper sheet. Good. Now they are free to try using that paper (or a digital scan of that, or whatever) to unlock my phone.
... the Russian government would be practically forced to retaliate for it in order not to loose face in front of their own people.
Let's not forget that that Cyberattacks Can Count As Act of War
In other words: "What are they going to do? Attack?"
Is that what you are saying? Great way to make friends. Or you think, that you don't need any?
I can think of at least one question for Clinton - how did the database of donors for The Clinton Foundation get stolen? Where and how was it being stored? Those are a couple unanswered questions right off the top of my head, maybe you can think of some more.
Mine is: Stolen? Why it isn't public in first place?
(Perhaps because I live in a different part of the world.)
Declarative syntax is (at least in principle) a massive win, especially for distro builders.
By having a loud bike it's harder for them to not know you are there.
If that is the concern, they should get a beacon or strobes.
When people author web pages, they're usually pretty certain how they're going to end up looking when the browser renders them.
They may be certain - if they have no clue how the thing works. Accessing the same URL may deliver A today, but B tomorrow. It may show C to me and it may show D to you. If you use an URL pointing to a host that you do not control, then you have no control on what that host delivers. By definition. Do we want to outlaw external links? I don't think so.
To be honest: no, I'm not sure. I was surprised too when I read it first time. While the case seems to be several years old, it came to my attention only a few months back and it seems to be a rather landmark court decision which is not talked about much. I tried to contact a company that does something similar in my country with the very same business model and I attempted to get a clarification, but the person on the other side was apparently not capable to understand my questions. It was basically a sales person with a script to follow.
On the other hand, the court decision seems to be rather clear: (in my own words:) the vendor by selling the license first time "exhausts" his rights to further control that license and thus the licensee is free to give up the rights he was granted by the license and can re-sell the license to next party. It also seems a common sense to me, but IANAL yada yada
Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus