Heh, you seriously think that's why I had a problem with your post? I am once again staggered by the brilliant insights into human nature I learn here on HN...
It was posted here too. What's cool in this case is that user X asks about the relevance of P, and user Y comes up with many months olds news on Q that happens to be the perfect missing piece in the puzzle.
This stuff happens all the time. Why is R this way? CEO of R Inc. comes up to tell you. Why is S not in space? It just so happen that a engineer from the space program is reading the comment and answers with a detailed insightful post.
Those look pretty different to me. I mean, very clearly related, but with tons of small changes. Like, the angle of almost every terminal is different, and in general the new typeface is much more vertical.
Yes, as someone said below, what's the difference between most programming languages? Very small changes in the grand scheme of things, they mostly all have variables, classes, functions, etc. It's the same thing with fonts, they mostly all have the same sort of form, with variations. Put that font beside Arial and Helvetica and you can probably see similarities between them as well, yet they have a different name.
Arial should have never come to be. The only reason it exists is because changing it a little and giving it a new name meant Monotype didn’t have to pay Linotype license fees.
Arial was originally it's own font (Monotype Grotesque), but got squished to match Helvetica's metrics which is a good example of how fonts can be different and similar to each other.
As you can see, all the areas in which Monotype Arial is different from Linotype Helvetica are borrowed from Monotype Grot. The reason to make such a monster is purely financial.
There are a myriad of things that are legal for the government to do that are illegal for a common citizen. There's no irony in that.
If the government does not require a warrant to do something, then it should be legal for anyone to do. After all, the entire purpose of a warrant is to insure oversight in the use of government power.
The government doesn't require a warrant to take your property by taxation or for eminent domain.
The government doesn't require a warrant to prevent people from entering or leaving the country.
The government doesn't require a warrant to block off city streets or do any of a number of things to public property.
The only things that the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant to do are "search and seizure", which are terms with very specific meanings in the Common Law. The NSA somehow argues that intercepting people's traffic isn't a "search" until an analyst actually looks at it, which I think is a ridiculous argument; however, the response isn't "everything you do needs a warrant", but "that's a search, and searches need warrants".
Your examples are just word games. The intent of a warrant is oversight, all of those examples require oversight, some more so than others, but all of them require some sort of accountability.
