Is fashion not mostly about convincing you that your clothes are somehow wrong and you need to purchase new ones?
Is fashion not mostly about convincing you that your clothes are somehow wrong and you need to purchase new ones?
As Hammond’s Workshop proves, expense management is not Richard’s forte.
The only person liable here is the shooter.
On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I’d be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people’s minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they’d face charges.
The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
Google’s “common carrier” type of defence takes you only so far, as it’s not a purely neutral party in terms, as it “recommends”, not merely “delivers results”, as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.
Yes, indeed. One of the nice things about docker is that you can keep everything self contained, but then also map in volumes. This may be an external directory for configuration that you archive elsewhere but could also be something more advanced like a Kubernetes PVC.
If you can’t keep it forever, you didn’t buy it - as in take ownership of it - you just rented it.