Well it's only like a town square IN THAT people are personally accountable for their posts. If people can use pseudonyms without any restrictions at all, this will be lost and there will be a flood of venomous noise.
How is that different from the current flood of venomous noise on Facebook? That they keep having to update their policies shows they recognize the problem, and want to stop catching hell over it (as opposed to stopping it, which is impossible and can only suppress legitimate speech in the attempt).
It is not a binary equation. There are other categories in between. And there are a lot of examples of restrictions within that spectrum. And Facebook is probably violating some of them, if the allegations are true. It has, for instance, been illegal for 50+ years to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, etc. If your name doesn't sound "authentic" because you are from, say, an African tribe (I mean, really, if Johnathon Goodluck weren't the president of a country, how many Americans would believe that was a real name? Thus, making him, but not people with names like John Smith or Joe Jones, provide documents that can easily be used for identity theft, because he is from Africa and doesn't have a white sounding name, has been illegal for half a century.
There's also the matter of whether or not Facebook (realizes) they are responsible for any misuse those identity documents are put to. It's only a matter of time before some disgruntled insider sells the whole database to some Russian mafia type.
As long as your streaming service is working. And your internet service. And any number of other steps in between. And the streaming service doesn't get in to a dispute with a studio, and drop (or be forced to drop) their entire product line. And as long as they don't change the price from ten bucks a month to 20, or 50, or 500. Or you lose your job and can't even afford ten.
I'll stop listening to music before I pay for something as insubstantial as radio (and that's what streaming is. And don't think for a second you won't have ads within a few years, even on premium accounts.)
I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show". This isn't about who ate the last cupcake, it's a point of law. If there's an established law, then shouldn't the accusation be moot?
How else could it possibly be? If the judge (or jury) hears only one side, how can they possibly consider the other side? Your position is literally irrational and disconnected from reality.
So, if he, say, poisoned you with bad food, on purpose, you would agree that you shouldn't have any expectation of being able recover your medical costs? Because he can't be troubled to obey the law?
The court didn't actually weigh the case, since the restaurant never answered the complaint.
And that's the end of any sympathy they might have had coming from me. No matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is, if you don't answer it, you deserve to lose.
As I said, it's already illegal to drive without insurance. So what you want is already the law.
And if you believe that getting your car paid for in an accident and the other driver having insurance are the same thing, you should be institutionalized for your own safety.
You've changed your story from "I want my car paid for in an accident" to "I want to force other people to act in a particular way." One is about taking care of yourself. The other is about exerting power over other people. They are completely different desires.
You should give some serious thought to what, exactly, you want, because the first thing you said is already available to you, unless you're too cheap to buy it, and the second is already required by law everywhere in the civilized world.
You don't have to in California, either. The insurance company informs them when you have a policy, electronically, automatically. You are supposed to be completely unaware of the process . . . unless you're a vile, disgusting lawbreaker who doesn't have insurance (which is a misdemeanor in California - a jailable offense). I believe they also automatically inform DMV if you - or the insurance company - cancel your policy, too, so that you can't get a year long policy, then pay only one month.
I'd be surprised if there isn't a similar system in your state.
That's called "car rentals," and it's hardly new. In fact, there's an entire industry built around it. And right now, even if you (as you are required to) have insurance on yourself as a driver, the rental company will still pressure you to buy supplementary coverage from them, so you can just "walk away" and not pay the deductible.
The odds that the person in the card, whose name is on the lease, has zero responsibility are basically none any time within our lifetimes.
And even if we manage that, the rental companies will still have to have insurance, and the amount of miles being traveled won't go down. In fact, it will likely go up if rentals really are more convenient, and that means that insurance premiums, overall, will go up as well.
Again, insurance companies will benefit from the lower accident rates (if they happen), not suffer from the increased premiums.
More than that... if we have self driving cars, why would I pay for insurance at all?
Because if you won't, your car registration will be denied (same as now), and your self driving car will automatically refuse to run until it's renewed (better than now, since it will remove uninsured drivers from the road entirely, as opposed to the 25% in some state who have no insurance.)
What you want is comprehensive insurance. That pays even if the accident is your own fault. It is universally available everywhere, and no fault isn't part of the equation whatsoever.
What you want is comprehensive coverage at liability only cost. Good luck with that.
Really? As long as liability insurance is mandatory, and comprehensive required for as long as you have load on the car, and as long as it takes action on the part of a state legislature followed by years of court battles to force insurance companies to lower rates, no, insurance companies will not suffer from lower accident rates.
In fact, in most states, they will probably use the changing market as an excuse to raise rates, knowing they will continue to sell the same number of policies while paying fewer claims.
Anybody who believes that the legal requirements for insurance will change for self driving cars is smoking dope.
Given how active Shatner is, in his 80s, still competing in horse shows and all, I'm more and more certain he's some kind of undead, feeding on the souls of his former co-stars.
Average rent in Orange County for a studio - no actual bedroom - is, last time I checked, over $1,000/month. Cars are not cheap, nor is the insurance it is a crime to drive without. Food, other expenses, taxes, it adds up. yeah, it's possible to live on it, but to live alone is, at best, difficult. And is a very shitty way to live.
Plus,
but still put away money every month, thanks to medi-cal covering insurance
translates to "thanks to welfare paid for by other people who make more than $25k/year." You've actually agreed it's damned difficult to get by on that amount.
London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it on his income as a merchant seaman — roughly $70,000 per year.
In Canada, the official poverty level is around $25,000 per year for single persons. It shows you how rich the Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even compared to another first-world country.
In California, at least anywhere south of the Bay area, somebody making $25k/year is probably living in their car. $70k is hardly poor, but it's not much more than a comfortable middle class living.
20 years ago, home prices in California were not much different than they are today, when things are still recovering from the collapse of the housing market. You'd have to go back at least 40 years to find home prices that would be attainable for even the lower middle class.
And even then, most of the cheaper homes were condos, not houses, and condos always have associations, and associations always have fees. And Prop 13 or no, property taxes have to be paid. So even if someone bought their home in better days, odds are, if there is any non-insane way to describe them as "poor" now, they no longer have a place to install solar panels.
Either the headline is idiotic bullshit, or California is now giving solar panels to the homeless (who might, in fact, be able to use them to charge their smart phones, this being California, and all).
However, being the cynic I am, I wouldn't be surprised to see
the web become even more useless than it already is. There are damned few web sites that I have more than a vague passing interest in, and none that can't do without.
Slashdot Mirror
Second semester law school: unconscionable contracts are unenforceable.
Aside from any contractual obligations between Samsung and Microsoft that would affect this, and you can bet there are some.
The lesson here, boys and girls, don't get legal advice from first semester law students. Consult a real lawyer.
Well it's only like a town square IN THAT people are personally accountable for their posts. If people can use pseudonyms without any restrictions at all, this will be lost and there will be a flood of venomous noise.
How is that different from the current flood of venomous noise on Facebook? That they keep having to update their policies shows they recognize the problem, and want to stop catching hell over it (as opposed to stopping it, which is impossible and can only suppress legitimate speech in the attempt).
It is not a binary equation. There are other categories in between. And there are a lot of examples of restrictions within that spectrum. And Facebook is probably violating some of them, if the allegations are true. It has, for instance, been illegal for 50+ years to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, etc. If your name doesn't sound "authentic" because you are from, say, an African tribe (I mean, really, if Johnathon Goodluck weren't the president of a country, how many Americans would believe that was a real name? Thus, making him, but not people with names like John Smith or Joe Jones, provide documents that can easily be used for identity theft, because he is from Africa and doesn't have a white sounding name, has been illegal for half a century.
There's also the matter of whether or not Facebook (realizes) they are responsible for any misuse those identity documents are put to. It's only a matter of time before some disgruntled insider sells the whole database to some Russian mafia type.
As long as your streaming service is working. And your internet service. And any number of other steps in between. And the streaming service doesn't get in to a dispute with a studio, and drop (or be forced to drop) their entire product line. And as long as they don't change the price from ten bucks a month to 20, or 50, or 500. Or you lose your job and can't even afford ten.
I'll stop listening to music before I pay for something as insubstantial as radio (and that's what streaming is. And don't think for a second you won't have ads within a few years, even on premium accounts.)
I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show". This isn't about who ate the last cupcake, it's a point of law.
If there's an established law, then shouldn't the accusation be moot?
How else could it possibly be? If the judge (or jury) hears only one side, how can they possibly consider the other side? Your position is literally irrational and disconnected from reality.
So, if he, say, poisoned you with bad food, on purpose, you would agree that you shouldn't have any expectation of being able recover your medical costs? Because he can't be troubled to obey the law?
The court didn't actually weigh the case, since the restaurant never answered the complaint.
And that's the end of any sympathy they might have had coming from me. No matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is, if you don't answer it, you deserve to lose.
But the modelers argue that this really wasn't a failure, because their predictions served
to increase their funding. So the process was 100% successful.
As I said, it's already illegal to drive without insurance. So what you want is already the law.
And if you believe that getting your car paid for in an accident and the other driver having insurance are the same thing, you should be institutionalized for your own safety.
You've changed your story from "I want my car paid for in an accident" to "I want to force other people to act in a particular way." One is about taking care of yourself. The other is about exerting power over other people. They are completely different desires.
You should give some serious thought to what, exactly, you want, because the first thing you said is already available to you, unless you're too cheap to buy it, and the second is already required by law everywhere in the civilized world.
You don't have to in California, either. The insurance company informs them when you have a policy, electronically, automatically. You are supposed to be completely unaware of the process . . . unless you're a vile, disgusting lawbreaker who doesn't have insurance (which is a misdemeanor in California - a jailable offense). I believe they also automatically inform DMV if you - or the insurance company - cancel your policy, too, so that you can't get a year long policy, then pay only one month.
I'd be surprised if there isn't a similar system in your state.
That's called "car rentals," and it's hardly new. In fact, there's an entire industry built around it. And right now, even if you (as you are required to) have insurance on yourself as a driver, the rental company will still pressure you to buy supplementary coverage from them, so you can just "walk away" and not pay the deductible.
The odds that the person in the card, whose name is on the lease, has zero responsibility are basically none any time within our lifetimes.
And even if we manage that, the rental companies will still have to have insurance, and the amount of miles being traveled won't go down. In fact, it will likely go up if rentals really are more convenient, and that means that insurance premiums, overall, will go up as well.
Again, insurance companies will benefit from the lower accident rates (if they happen), not suffer from the increased premiums.
More than that ... if we have self driving cars, why would I pay for insurance at all?
Because if you won't, your car registration will be denied (same as now), and your self driving car will automatically refuse to run until it's renewed (better than now, since it will remove uninsured drivers from the road entirely, as opposed to the 25% in some state who have no insurance.)
What you want is comprehensive insurance. That pays even if the accident is your own fault. It is universally available everywhere, and no fault isn't part of the equation whatsoever.
What you want is comprehensive coverage at liability only cost. Good luck with that.
And this is consistent with all places where no fault is the only option.
Really? As long as liability insurance is mandatory, and comprehensive required for as long as you have load on the car, and as long as it takes action on the part of a state legislature followed by years of court battles to force insurance companies to lower rates, no, insurance companies will not suffer from lower accident rates.
In fact, in most states, they will probably use the changing market as an excuse to raise rates, knowing they will continue to sell the same number of policies while paying fewer claims.
Anybody who believes that the legal requirements for insurance will change for self driving cars is smoking dope.
Given how active Shatner is, in his 80s, still competing in horse shows and all, I'm more and more certain he's some kind of undead, feeding on the souls of his former co-stars.
I'm sure their computerized robo calling systems will be crushed by the abuse.
If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute.
Given that we're talking about the "nutrition" industry, if a scientist had done this, it would likely be his job. Specifically.
That's the point.
Average rent in Orange County for a studio - no actual bedroom - is, last time I checked, over $1,000/month. Cars are not cheap, nor is the insurance it is a crime to drive without. Food, other expenses, taxes, it adds up. yeah, it's possible to live on it, but to live alone is, at best, difficult. And is a very shitty way to live.
Plus,
but still put away money every month, thanks to medi-cal covering insurance
translates to "thanks to welfare paid for by other people who make more than $25k/year." You've actually agreed it's damned difficult to get by on that amount.
Better than arresting them for stealing power.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/12/1370393/-Homeless-woman-charged-with-theft-of-services-for-charging-cell-phone-outside
They probably wasted more tax dollars with that affair than telling the homeless to come to City Hall to get their phones charged for free.
Very likely. However:
"Luckily, in the end, the DA dropped the charges. "
Makes this look like hysterical propaganda:
Welcome to the modern American Police State.
since he knows the U.S. government won't do anything to him.
It's mutual. He's irrelevant.
In Canada, the official poverty level is around $25,000 per year for single persons. It shows you how rich the Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even compared to another first-world country.
In California, at least anywhere south of the Bay area, somebody making $25k/year is probably living in their car. $70k is hardly poor, but it's not much more than a comfortable middle class living.
20 years ago, home prices in California were not much different than they are today, when things are still recovering from the collapse of the housing market. You'd have to go back at least 40 years to find home prices that would be attainable for even the lower middle class.
And even then, most of the cheaper homes were condos, not houses, and condos always have associations, and associations always have fees. And Prop 13 or no, property taxes have to be paid. So even if someone bought their home in better days, odds are, if there is any non-insane way to describe them as "poor" now, they no longer have a place to install solar panels.
Either the headline is idiotic bullshit, or California is now giving solar panels to the homeless (who might, in fact, be able to use them to charge their smart phones, this being California, and all).
However, being the cynic I am, I wouldn't be surprised to see
the web become even more useless than it already is. There are damned few web sites that I have more than a vague passing interest in, and none that can't do without.