(2)
(a) An actor commits a threat of violence if the actor:
(i)
(A) threatens to commit an offense involving bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage; and
(B) acts with intent to place an individual in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, substantial bodily injury, or death; or
(ii) makes a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to an individual.
(b) A threat under this section may be express or implied.
They showed up with an arrest warrant. Unless and until there's some evidence where they just rolled up with the intent to murder him, I'm going to presume that's not the case.
It seems to me that if the point is to preserve the option in case of litigation: having the would-be electors meet, conduct a vote, fill out certificates, and hold them until possible certification by the governor might have been fine. This is basically what happened in Hawaii in 1960 -- the Democratic slate was only sent to Washington once certified by the governor.
Going ahead and transmitting them and purporting them to be the actual certificates seems like a fraud.
I really want to hear about the friend paying off all of Kavanaugh's debts reimbursing him for baseball tickets to the tune of $200,000 from 2016-2017.
Looks as though they've started receiving limited signals -- a "heartbeat" from the probe. And even if full communications aren't re-established in the immediate term, it seems Voyager 2 automatically repositions its antenna towards Earth every few months -- next one due is in October. Pretty slick for such an old probe.
They don't support Israel for the sake of supporting Israeli citizens or the Jewish people in general. These whackjobs support Israel because many of the biblical prophesies they preach (or use for grift) depend on the restoration of Israel and the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Yes I'm sure it'll be plagued by technical problems, and obviously the privacy implications.
As for opting in -- that depends on whether this is approved as a method and then who adopts it and whatever they decide. Unless they're brain dead there will need to be a process for failures, so that could conceivably apply to people who opt out as well
Okay, so this isn't a new law or regulation. This is the ESRB and a couple companies requesting approval for a new method of providing verifiable parental consent to be acceptable to use for the purpose of satisfying COPPA's existing requirements. From what I can find, the current approved methods of verifying parental consent appear to be:
submitting a signed form or a credit card
talking to trained personnel via a toll-free number or video chat
answering a series of knowledge-based challenge questions
Instead this would be handing the device to a parent, they snap a selfie and it gets analyzed for age estimation to determine if the person providing parental consent is an adult.
Good or bad, too invasive, idk, not really making a judgement there myself. I'd imagine the companies want this so they don't have to have as many trained personnel and it's probably less likely to be a barrier to consent as compared to putting in a credit card, talking to someone, or answering whatever knowledge-based challenges they use.
Partially. The Blink browser engine used in Chromium is a fork from WebKit but it's diverged quite a bit in some ways I believe. But there's a lot more that goes into the project. For example, V8, the browser's JavaScript engine.
The thing is, fonts are copyrightable but typefaces aren't. Typefaces are the symbols, fonts are the files that contain all the symbols along with the formatting and everything else that let you use the typefaces in software. So he probably can't copyright the symbol itself and it's doubtful he could get a trademark on it either. But at the same time, copyright is also weird in that if he made an image and had that X in it, he would have the copyright to that specific image. But that's only insomuch as anyone else would also own the copyright of an image they made with the stupid X in it.
When did the issue start? Did you install new RAM? Are both the new sticks identical or of mixed make? A new CPU? Did you unseat and reseat the CPU or anything before this started?
You tried different RAM? Was it properly addressed or no? Did you try the current or different RAM stick by stick to verify each one is working on its own and then in the recommended slots as per your motherboard manual?
These steps/questions are necessary to determine whether the issue is a bad memory stick, something funky going on with the memory controller wrt slots, timings, combination of different modules, etc, or even the possibility of a defective memory controller or a bent/broken pin on the CPU.
That looks like a snippet the system properties menu in Windows. It's detecting all of the RAM but it isn't that only 7.92GB is free -- rather only 7.92GB is capable of being addressed, due to something going wrong.
So you’re saying commenters are jerks - which is out of his control - then you speculate that you “wouldn’t be surprised if he has changed for the worst”
Not who you're responding to, but despite it being "out of his control", it still greatly diminishes my desire to watch the videos, to chat in live streams, or otherwise engage.
Antitrust suits result in more varied options than just breaking a company up. Microsoft had to have certain aspects of it's operations supervised by the Department of Justice for years, and had to make mandatory changes with respect to browser bundling that only ended with Windows 10/11.
Intel has settled some antitrust actions -- namely lawsuits by AMD -- with money and cross-licensing agreements. They've spun off some divisions and operations over the years but none forced that I can recall.
Depends on what you mean. It's a more arduous process -- but even if this injunction were granted that process would still play out unless Microsoft just decided to give up. But in another sense it's not as high of a bar to reach as a preliminary injunction, which the court by process has to make certain assumptions with a presumptive bias towards the party not seeking the injunction.
EvilColeslaw @ EvilColeslaw @beehaw.org Posts 0Comments 47Joined 2 yr. ago
Among other possibilities, Utah Code § 76-5-107
They showed up with an arrest warrant. Unless and until there's some evidence where they just rolled up with the intent to murder him, I'm going to presume that's not the case.