It's not in breach of Apples TOS - what Netflix is doing is allowed and has been since day one, see Amazons Kindle app which does the same (can't buy books or take out a Prime subscription through it, but can consume paid for content via it).
Time shifting is something that has been allowed in UK copyright law since the 1980s, so advertising a VCR that included time shifting wasn't illegal.
Apple didn't really start advertising the iPod in the UK until the iTunes Music Store took off. It was available, but they didn't tell you what you could do with it - it was "hip" silhouette dancing people listening to music, with white earphones and an iPod. Very abstract.
It's better to be a believer in the NHS in whatever state it's in than it is to be a believer in "free markets" which let you die because your insulin costs twice as much this month as it did last month...
How about that "free market" which makes people afraid to go to a doctor because it will bankrupt them?
How about the "free market" which made GoFundMe the biggest healthcare insurer in the US?
They couldn't do that because format shifting was illegal under UK copyright law until 1st October 2014.
So any advertising campaign encouraging people to rip, mix and burn CDs would have been unlawful and instantly banned by the Advertising Standards Agency.
You can't use the financial struggles of the British NHS as any example of socialised healthcare in a negative sense, because it's financial struggles are caused by a significant decrease in funding in real terms by the current government, plus a shift to treating its staff so badly that they are leaving NHS employment in droves.
The *entire* point of the current governments attitude to the NHS right now is *precisely* so in a few years time it can point to all the people saying "the NHS doesn't work" and use them to support a sell off to private ownership on the cheap.
It's already started - NHS bodies were recently forced to sell off "excess property" at a "three for one" sale price, which meant that a significant amount of NHS real estate was sold at firesale prices to property developers hand picked by the current government.
Why does the NHS have "excess property"? Because various services have been underfunded or defunded, meaning NHS trusts had to reduce and consolidate service provision, meaning NHS trusts now had extra wards and facilities they can't afford to provide services from. It wasn't a case of NHS trusts holding on to real estate to build an empire.
The only reason to hold the current state of the NHS up as an example of anything is as an example of deliberate mismanagement by the government.
Take for example waiting times - waiting times are an issue, so what does the government do about it? Decree that GP surgeries have to open in the evening and weekends to allow patients better access to their GPs. Does it matter that GP surgeries struggle to provide their current level of care? Not one bit. Is there extra funding for opening late and at the weekend? Not in any meaningful manner.
My wife, a GP, already worked from 7.30am to 7pm to cater for a normal 8am-6pm surgery day - 40 patient appointments a day, plus 4 home visits, plus 10 telephone consultations, plus 100 repeat prescriptions to sign for.
And now she's being told that she needs to work later and at the weekend. For no extra money.
Hospitals were told they were spending too much on locum doctors. So the government mandated a cap on locum rates. Now hospitals struggle to get locum doctors, meaning rota gaps, cancelled appointments and operations.
There are many examples of a GP practice closing and the practice partners themselves having to take second mortgages or loans out so they can pay their other staff a redundancy package.
We left and migrated to New Zealand. Not because of the NHS, but because of the governments management of the NHS.
At last count, out of the 132 people that graduated medical school with my wife, 94 now live and work outside the UK.
Every bad thing you can show about the NHS as an example of a "failing single payer system" is completely calculated by the current Conservative government, its things they have done deliberately because their end goal is to shift the UK to an insurance backed scheme like the US. This has been proven time and again.
Smokers and the obese have their routine operations cancelled? Good, they are the complex cases and raise the risks significantly even in "routine" operations. Complex cases and increased risk means it costs more to do the operation, and to insure the operation. Less money in the pot means you have to start taking responsibility for your own health - lose weight or stop smoking and your risk goes down, and your operation done.
It entirely depends what you mean by "evidence"...
I had no evidence of my abuse at the hands of a family friend in the 1980s.
Neither did any of his other victims.
But together, as 12 independent victims, the case against him was enough to convict him on most of the charges and have him sentenced to a lengthy stay at Her Majesties Pleasure.
More of his victims are still coming out of the woodwork, so his stay is likely to be extended for the foreseeable future.
We sold a house in the UK 5 years ago - put it on the market for X, got an offer for X and then the prospective buyers mortgage provider wanted an appraisal.
The appraiser appraised the property at X-£14,000.
Buyers wanted us to drop the price, we refused and the mortgage provider withdrew.
We put the house back on the market and it sold two weeks later for X+£10,000.
Appraisals are very much in the eye of the appraiser.
Yeah, except that what happened here is basically the equivalent of a Senate committee or congressional hearing issuing a warrant for the disclosure of a document or information and someone enforcing that warrant.
Perfectly legal, perfectly within the powers of both bodies, just different names for the processes and people involved.
Nothing to get all het up about, nothing wrong happened here, there was no overstep of authority, no abuse of power or position etc.
Awww look at you, trying to recover from your embarrassment - I was using it to mock the person I was responding to, rather than using it in the same way they were (whatever way they intended).
But I guess you missed that as well. Missing a lot today, aren't you?
Ok, as I seem to be in the minority of people who actually understood the grand parent posters point, let me take a moment to explain it.
They understand that this happened in the UK and not the US. Thats fundamental to their post.
They then suggest that the American Revolutionary War (1765-1783 - otherwise known as The War of Independence, in which the American colonies won their independence from the British crown) was justified precisely because of this act (see the grand parents post title).
They then quote the relevant portion of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was made possible by the independence gained during the American Revolutionary War - the quote they highlight suggests that they think that that part of the constitution would protect against the sort of seizure of documents or papers that occurred in TFA.
Its got nothing to do with the grand parent poster thinking the constitutional protection they highlighted applies in the UK.
Its got everything to do with the grant parent poster thinking that highlighted constitutional protection would prevent this sort of seizure in the US.
And that is why they think the American Revolutionary War was justified.
They are basically saying "And this is why we seceded from the British Crown and enshrined our constitutional rights in a document".
The post you replied to was making a point about why the American Revolution was needed - because it supposedly prevents acts like this.
The problem with the grandparents point however is that this act can very easily fall within the bounds of the constitutional quote they highlight - the serjeant-at-arms was issued an order of seizure by a parliamentary committee, naming the class of documents or information and the individual required to disclose those items. It is, to all intent and purpose, a warrant issued by a proper authority under the UK parliamentary system, just as an equivalent order issued by a House or Senate committee would be.
Doesn't Tesla build to order though? Dealerships stock unsold vehicles but you currently need to be on a wait list for a Tesla vehicle, there's currently no way to buy a Tesla off the shelf, so shouldn't Tesla be shipping them as they come off the production line?
Mandate the seat sizes and then people will bitch and moan about the increase in price.
We are talking about the service provision in the most price conscious segment of the market. Those price conscious customers will want the additional room at the same price.
Many top tier airports are slot restricted - they are at capacity and can't increase the number of aircraft landing or taking off, which means that the only alternative is larger aircraft.
The Trump administration seems to be fond of using that term to justify acts - but then Trump does seem to have a isolationist agenda, and this is the perfect approach to get his base worked up about foreign companies.
This won't stop alleged IP theft or anything else.
I'm not saying anything about gun control other than to refute your rather ridiculous assertion that an armed police force *has* to come from an armed populace otherwise they are poorly trained.
We have never had a gun culture in the UK and yet we have never had an issue training a drafted military force in times of war. Indeed, our police force and military is among the best trained in the world.
Basically the rest of your post is the same old rant against gun control, and can be tuned out. I'm happy living in a country with gun control.
Countries where gun ownership is illegal or heavily controlled still manage to produce highly trained armed police officers with very good weapons handling abilities...
The UK for example has a very well trained armed response program, and gun ownership here is very much an oddity. We also have an extremely well trained and professional army.
You do not need an armed populace to produce a professional armed police force. What you do need to do is have the police force trained in weapons use - and you should be doing that from scratch regardless of whether your public is allowed to own guns or not.
You understood the sentence enough to selectively quote the bits that pushed your agenda, but you don't understand what you left out was just as important? Nice troll.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not in breach of Apples TOS - what Netflix is doing is allowed and has been since day one, see Amazons Kindle app which does the same (can't buy books or take out a Prime subscription through it, but can consume paid for content via it).
Time shifting is something that has been allowed in UK copyright law since the 1980s, so advertising a VCR that included time shifting wasn't illegal.
Apple didn't really start advertising the iPod in the UK until the iTunes Music Store took off. It was available, but they didn't tell you what you could do with it - it was "hip" silhouette dancing people listening to music, with white earphones and an iPod. Very abstract.
It's better to be a believer in the NHS in whatever state it's in than it is to be a believer in "free markets" which let you die because your insulin costs twice as much this month as it did last month...
How about that "free market" which makes people afraid to go to a doctor because it will bankrupt them?
How about the "free market" which made GoFundMe the biggest healthcare insurer in the US?
They couldn't do that because format shifting was illegal under UK copyright law until 1st October 2014.
So any advertising campaign encouraging people to rip, mix and burn CDs would have been unlawful and instantly banned by the Advertising Standards Agency.
Why then did the "hands up, don't shoot" chant survive as long as it did, when it was based on a lie?
You can't use the financial struggles of the British NHS as any example of socialised healthcare in a negative sense, because it's financial struggles are caused by a significant decrease in funding in real terms by the current government, plus a shift to treating its staff so badly that they are leaving NHS employment in droves.
The *entire* point of the current governments attitude to the NHS right now is *precisely* so in a few years time it can point to all the people saying "the NHS doesn't work" and use them to support a sell off to private ownership on the cheap.
It's already started - NHS bodies were recently forced to sell off "excess property" at a "three for one" sale price, which meant that a significant amount of NHS real estate was sold at firesale prices to property developers hand picked by the current government.
Why does the NHS have "excess property"? Because various services have been underfunded or defunded, meaning NHS trusts had to reduce and consolidate service provision, meaning NHS trusts now had extra wards and facilities they can't afford to provide services from. It wasn't a case of NHS trusts holding on to real estate to build an empire.
The only reason to hold the current state of the NHS up as an example of anything is as an example of deliberate mismanagement by the government.
Take for example waiting times - waiting times are an issue, so what does the government do about it? Decree that GP surgeries have to open in the evening and weekends to allow patients better access to their GPs. Does it matter that GP surgeries struggle to provide their current level of care? Not one bit. Is there extra funding for opening late and at the weekend? Not in any meaningful manner.
My wife, a GP, already worked from 7.30am to 7pm to cater for a normal 8am-6pm surgery day - 40 patient appointments a day, plus 4 home visits, plus 10 telephone consultations, plus 100 repeat prescriptions to sign for.
And now she's being told that she needs to work later and at the weekend. For no extra money.
Hospitals were told they were spending too much on locum doctors. So the government mandated a cap on locum rates. Now hospitals struggle to get locum doctors, meaning rota gaps, cancelled appointments and operations.
There are many examples of a GP practice closing and the practice partners themselves having to take second mortgages or loans out so they can pay their other staff a redundancy package.
We left and migrated to New Zealand. Not because of the NHS, but because of the governments management of the NHS.
At last count, out of the 132 people that graduated medical school with my wife, 94 now live and work outside the UK.
Every bad thing you can show about the NHS as an example of a "failing single payer system" is completely calculated by the current Conservative government, its things they have done deliberately because their end goal is to shift the UK to an insurance backed scheme like the US. This has been proven time and again.
Smokers and the obese have their routine operations cancelled? Good, they are the complex cases and raise the risks significantly even in "routine" operations. Complex cases and increased risk means it costs more to do the operation, and to insure the operation. Less money in the pot means you have to start taking responsibility for your own health - lose weight or stop smoking and your risk goes down, and your operation done.
It entirely depends what you mean by "evidence"...
I had no evidence of my abuse at the hands of a family friend in the 1980s.
Neither did any of his other victims.
But together, as 12 independent victims, the case against him was enough to convict him on most of the charges and have him sentenced to a lengthy stay at Her Majesties Pleasure.
More of his victims are still coming out of the woodwork, so his stay is likely to be extended for the foreseeable future.
After the recent anti-encryption bill that was enacted into law, I wouldn't trust any range safety officers self destruct signal, that's for sure...
We sold a house in the UK 5 years ago - put it on the market for X, got an offer for X and then the prospective buyers mortgage provider wanted an appraisal.
The appraiser appraised the property at X-£14,000.
Buyers wanted us to drop the price, we refused and the mortgage provider withdrew.
We put the house back on the market and it sold two weeks later for X+£10,000.
Appraisals are very much in the eye of the appraiser.
Yeah, except that what happened here is basically the equivalent of a Senate committee or congressional hearing issuing a warrant for the disclosure of a document or information and someone enforcing that warrant.
Perfectly legal, perfectly within the powers of both bodies, just different names for the processes and people involved.
Nothing to get all het up about, nothing wrong happened here, there was no overstep of authority, no abuse of power or position etc.
If you insist.
Awww look at you, trying to recover from your embarrassment - I was using it to mock the person I was responding to, rather than using it in the same way they were (whatever way they intended).
But I guess you missed that as well. Missing a lot today, aren't you?
Oh look, someone else who is missing the point :D
Ok, as I seem to be in the minority of people who actually understood the grand parent posters point, let me take a moment to explain it.
They understand that this happened in the UK and not the US. Thats fundamental to their post.
They then suggest that the American Revolutionary War (1765-1783 - otherwise known as The War of Independence, in which the American colonies won their independence from the British crown) was justified precisely because of this act (see the grand parents post title).
They then quote the relevant portion of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was made possible by the independence gained during the American Revolutionary War - the quote they highlight suggests that they think that that part of the constitution would protect against the sort of seizure of documents or papers that occurred in TFA.
Its got nothing to do with the grand parent poster thinking the constitutional protection they highlighted applies in the UK.
Its got everything to do with the grant parent poster thinking that highlighted constitutional protection would prevent this sort of seizure in the US.
And that is why they think the American Revolutionary War was justified.
They are basically saying "And this is why we seceded from the British Crown and enshrined our constitutional rights in a document".
Ok? Everyone got it now? :)
Nope, I'm just pointing out that CaptainDork was living up to their name and missing the point - which you also seem to be doing.
Please do say if you want the thread explained to you in simple terms.
Google liked Typescript enough to switch mainstream Angular development over to it...
Point of order:
The post you replied to was making a point about why the American Revolution was needed - because it supposedly prevents acts like this.
The problem with the grandparents point however is that this act can very easily fall within the bounds of the constitutional quote they highlight - the serjeant-at-arms was issued an order of seizure by a parliamentary committee, naming the class of documents or information and the individual required to disclose those items. It is, to all intent and purpose, a warrant issued by a proper authority under the UK parliamentary system, just as an equivalent order issued by a House or Senate committee would be.
Doesn't Tesla build to order though? Dealerships stock unsold vehicles but you currently need to be on a wait list for a Tesla vehicle, there's currently no way to buy a Tesla off the shelf, so shouldn't Tesla be shipping them as they come off the production line?
Mandate the seat sizes and then people will bitch and moan about the increase in price.
We are talking about the service provision in the most price conscious segment of the market. Those price conscious customers will want the additional room at the same price.
Many top tier airports are slot restricted - they are at capacity and can't increase the number of aircraft landing or taking off, which means that the only alternative is larger aircraft.
The Trump administration seems to be fond of using that term to justify acts - but then Trump does seem to have a isolationist agenda, and this is the perfect approach to get his base worked up about foreign companies.
This won't stop alleged IP theft or anything else.
Why?
PayPal isn't the sole payment provider, there are loads of other options to use, including your own merchant account with a bank.
PayPal refusing service doesn't make this anything approaching an anti-trust issue.
I'm not saying anything about gun control other than to refute your rather ridiculous assertion that an armed police force *has* to come from an armed populace otherwise they are poorly trained.
We have never had a gun culture in the UK and yet we have never had an issue training a drafted military force in times of war. Indeed, our police force and military is among the best trained in the world.
Basically the rest of your post is the same old rant against gun control, and can be tuned out. I'm happy living in a country with gun control.
Countries where gun ownership is illegal or heavily controlled still manage to produce highly trained armed police officers with very good weapons handling abilities...
The UK for example has a very well trained armed response program, and gun ownership here is very much an oddity. We also have an extremely well trained and professional army.
You do not need an armed populace to produce a professional armed police force. What you do need to do is have the police force trained in weapons use - and you should be doing that from scratch regardless of whether your public is allowed to own guns or not.
You understood the sentence enough to selectively quote the bits that pushed your agenda, but you don't understand what you left out was just as important? Nice troll.
Simple - ones a retired politician who lost her last election, the other is supposedly the current President of the United States of America.
One automatically carries orders of magnitude more responsibility than the other when it comes to this.
And yet Trump supporters still like to use Hillary as if she is an equal to Trump - but only an equal when it benefits the Trump agenda, that is.