No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:
However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.
My internal rating is:
Overwhelmingly positive: game is actually quite good and also probably, but not always, a niche game.
Very positive: most people don’t hate it
Mostly positive: Game has one or two big, specific issues for most people, like a specific performance or gameplay problem, but is otherwise fun.
Mixed: game either sucks or has had some controversy. Usually games that are good but not worth the money go here.
Mostly negative: game sucks
Overwhelmingly negative: exclusively reserved for shovelware and yearly sports games like FIFA and NBA games.
Yes but I also imagine many of the males in that picture died or were injured
Oh so it’s not meant to be quantitative but instead is meant as “most” to “almost everyone.” Makes sense, I thought he was doing the math and I was very confused lol
Not that I disagree but can someone explain how one congressperson losing takes the percentage control from 85-90% to 98%…?
If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.
It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.
I don’t think there are online multiplayer games like CoD or CS that don’t require a platform like steam or good old games to buy, download, and run. I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to do, but if avoiding marketing is your goal I recommend you run steam and change the default page it opens to to be the library where your games are and not the store
My daughter’s daycare had to close yesterday because it was too hot in the building. They have air conditioning but only from window units
What? I thought everyone knew they were the mouthpiece for that weird Chinese shen yun cult, falun gong
Ooh sorry this is a weird one it’s actually “wugopodes”
Well the Geneva convention didn’t exist during WW2 so that’s a moot point and “the US did it” is not a defense of war crimes. The US wantonly commits war crimes. An indiscriminate attack is not what you described. It is an attack that makes no effort (or insufficient effort) to target only military objectives and protect civilians.
This conversation has reached an end. You don’t understand the issue, and worse don’t seem to want to.
You didn’t link those because those are the ones Israel singed, you linked them because you didn’t know the difference.
The protocol I provisions on indiscriminate attacks define what and which civilian deaths are acceptable. Indiscriminate bombings - like blowing up a car in front of a completely unrelated building full of civilians - are unacceptable under protocol I. If your argument is that those attacks are moral because Israel is not a signatory of that protocol I’d argue they’re still committing war crimes, they just don’t admit it.
Killing an enemy combatant is a military objective, so attacking a building containing an enemy combatant does not meet any of those criteria.
You seem to think that the presence of a military objective justifies any amount of civilian damage and death. A plain text reading of Protocol I - which you have clearly read for the first time, considering you linked the wrong articles earlier - says exactly the inverse of that. You are interpreting Article 51 of Protocol I to mean what you want, not what it says.
No, explicitly wrong:
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or © those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
What you are describing is unequivocally a war crime. the ICC didn’t charge Netanyahu with war crimes just for the fun of it.
Those are articles of the Geneva Convention. Protocol I of the Geneva Convention is different. It was added later. The protocols are like amendments.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51
It clearly lays out what constitutes targeting of civilians. But the fact that you need to be told that killing civilians is wrong says everything that should be said.
Not according to Articles 51 and 54 of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, but then again who cares about war crimes, right?
Fascinating that “a bunch of civilians” doesn’t factor into that valuation
You mean like a game cafe
Honest answer is probably because no one knows shit about fuck so they are reporting anything and everything they can. If they had more, they’d probably report it
It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point