100%! It's definitely a great thing given the current circumstances.
Qu'est ce que fuck!
It's still the same thing as birthright citizenship. He has Canadian citizenship because his mother is Canadian.
An online petition calling on the Canadian government to revoke Elon Musk's citizenship is on track to become one of the most popular in the history of the House of Commons.
There's just one problem — Canada can't revoke Musk's citizenship.
Immigration lawyer Gabriela Ramo says that under Canadian law, someone's citizenship can only be revoked if it can be proven that they committed fraud or misrepresentation to obtain it.
"Before they could move to do this, they would need to introduce legislation, there would have to be amendments to the current Citizenship Act," said Ramo, former chair of the Canadian Bar Association's immigration section. "There's no provision that would allow them to pursue revocation of citizenship of a Canadian birth, by virtue of his birth to a Canadian mother."
Yes, I would want a source saying that Ukraine chose to cancel the other events and leave the White House.
But it seems like you misinterpreted the article to mean they were ordered to leave on-camera. It happened well after the media availability.
That's kind of mixed news. Seized Russian assets were supposed to fund Ukrainian reconstruction. It's sort of robbing future-Ukraine to pay present day-Ukraine. Overall though, still way better than no weapons, obviously.
I haven't seen that reported anywhere. Source?
My original claim was that, in addition to gedaliyah's points, the TOS gives them permission to perform basic browser tasks. My last comment was about the same thing. The TOS is relevant because 1) it's the basis of this entire discussion and 2) the changes in the TOS conclusively prove my original claim.
As to "data collection" in this context, those words do not appear in the TOS and are not rights Mozilla is asserting for use of their software. It's a fiction you invented. That was the point of me pointing out the use of the word "use" -- describing that term and distinguishing its meaning from the thing you made up.
Maximum wrongness on your part.
This is the original text that everyone flipped out about (OP: "WHY DO YOU NEED MY DATA TO MAKE FIREFOX WORK???"):
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
It has since been changed to:
You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.
Use. When you input a url, that information is used to resolve an IP then fetch a webpage. You're granting a right to complete tasks you assign using information you input. They have permission to send your post content to a server, but they don't own that content. This should be very obvious in the revised text.
Bitchin' bonus quote:
“It will be hard, but we will survive,” said Iryna Tsilyk, 42, a poet and film director in the capital, Kyiv, whose husband serves in the army. “Today, I was not ashamed of my president and my country. I am not sure that the Americans can say the same.”
I suspect the whole thing was premeditated, so it wouldn't have mattered. Does the VP normally interrupt the president when talking to other world leaders? Zelensky smiling and tacitly agreeing to Putin's narrative was never going to happen. I also can't imagine any European leader going to the White House and saying, "Yes, we've treated you very unfairly. The European Union was just a conspiracy to screw over America and we're very sorry, Dear Leader..."
LEAFS WIN!