That’s a fair point, I don’t want my info given to every private company out there. However the idea of the biometrics (if you take it at face value [no pun intended]) is that the biometrics are stored on the chip in your device. Then the password or authorization is then granted based on approval from that.
It’s not like you can grab another phone and try to log into said service with your biometrics.
Well it’s true. Those are The Doctors hands and arms.
Cool. We need more states to do this. Cops do have a lot of laws and rules they need to know but a one hour class seems like it can’t hurt.
Not sure about Android but IOS you can actually use FaceID for all the things you want like password managers, log into PayPal, and other biometric features but have it disabled to unlock the phone. It’s what I do, you don’t need to spam anything. Just use a pin to unlock.
“Nerds for lifting” I fucking love that and feel that.
A last will and testament is a legal document if actually executed properly that would cover this. This is all they are talking about. Either that or if no will exists then a court order that shows “said person” gets the inheritance and your GOG account.
Even with a “clean” record they still shouldn’t get their guns back. Ignoring all second amendment arguments just look at how they are holding their guns in the main picture. They are in no way trained or even given half assed knowledge in how to hold a fire arm.
With absolute honesty, I have to say I’ve not read the article just the headline and the first paragraph.
I know far too many servicemen and servicewomen who came out mentally and physically damaged while watching their peers die. (It sucks but this day is to recognize and honor that)
A good portion of them will agree with you on principal. They are the same people that will say this day is about those they lost who are not military in service to our country as well as those were military.
If you’re in a hostile situation and you have your teams back, you have your teams back. It doesn’t matter what your role is.
If your argument is to include people who are not in the line of fire, or are in a hostile area, this is not the day to make that argument. That comes off incredibly tasteless and insulting to those who are struggling with survivors guilt, 10, 20 and even 30 years after the fact.
I hate you and the 8 legged spider you rode in on. I am going to have unreasonable nightmares tonight.
Take my upvote.
For all those who did not read or at least skim the article. FlyingSquirrel is referencing Trumps claims that the FBI was authorized to use deadly force when conducting their UnCoNsTiTuTiOnAl raid.
I love that you were accurate with your placement.
Honestly I actually had not thought about people sitting around waiting to charge. In my area there are tons of chargers, grocery store, Costco, the mall, movie theaters. My experience had been that people would charge while doing other things. Thanks for the insight into a good use for it.
Honestly I actually had not thought about people sitting around waiting to charge. In my area there are tons of chargers at task oriented locations. Almost all Grocery stores, Costco, the mall, movie theaters. My experience had been that people would charge while doing other things. Thanks for the insight into a good use for it.
Why is a car capable of playing games in the first place. I understand it’s not going to allow people to play while they drive but still. That just seems like an odd/bad idea.
So instead of just having cancer, you’ll have cancer and be a criminal.
If that’s true, isn’t that considered counterfeit and thus federal prison?
Then you should have said that in your original response.
Like it was said, if you had originally read the article or look into it before commenting you would know they already got their cars back. Meaning your staunch stands that they don’t get their stuff back is false.
Even if you had done a simple Wikipedia search you would understand that there is a hearing. That means you can fight it and get your stuff back. A preponderance of evidence is required for civil asset forfeiture.
The Supreme Court case is about the intentional delay of the hearing for civil asset forfeiture. So that means they can represent themselves or pay for legal counsel to get their stuff back in a reasonable time. (Due process, fifth and 14th amendment. The government cannot deprive anyone of life liberty or property.) clearly we are talking about property here.
Don’t get me wrong civil asset forfeiture should not exist, and is an abomination to our rights. However, you need to accept that you were wrong with your comment towards Chestnut for giving a simplified explanation of what the root caused for the case was.
This is true however there are much more documented instances of this in America. Could be a pure numbers game (more people more cases) but no full proof of that.