How is it that the Republicans, the champions of liberty and freedom that they are, allowing this to go on?
I hope you were being sarcastic here? Otherwise, I have both a bridge and some fine land in Florida to sell you.
This highlights the real problem: Both parties have been captured and serve the interests of the super-wealthy now. Look at how the justice department under Obama gave a complete pass to the architects of the 2008 crash.
Here is my suggestion to websites that don't want people to use ad-blockers:
Agree that website visitors will be fully compensated for any damage caused by malicious adverts. And when I say "fully", I mean that the website operator will pay for full cleanup of my PC by a qualified IT professional and pay for my loss of productivity because my PC is inaccessible.
Don't want to take on that risk? Then don't block people using ad-blockers.
Perhaps it would be nice to give feedback on why submissions are NOT accepted. I realize that lots of submissions are spam, but as (I think) the person who submitted the story that had the highest comment count so far this year, I would really like to know why you did not think that my rejected submissions were worthy
I did read your response and you have clearly done well for yourself. I have also done well. As an immigrant who moved from a low housing cost area to a high housing cost area, I was very lucky to be able to buy a house when I did. Without buying this house, my finances now would be quite difficult.
However, your and my experience are not relevant. I doubt that they are typical, but more importantly, the issue should be put to graduates coming out of university now. Are they better off than in the past? I think that there were times that recent graduates were significantly better off.
I still think you are cherry picking items. For example, you say that access to advanced health care is better than it was in the past and I agree with you about this. I also suspect that access to routine healthcare may well be worse than in the past.
Perhaps you trust your politicians, but I have been lied to about an issue that affected my business: I was told it wasn't up for discussion for a while, only to have it discussed and a decision made against me before I had a chance to have any input on the decision.
Compare the housing's R value, the quality of materials in it, the design, the tools used to build it, the specs it meets, the wiring, the outlets, the electrical panel, the plumbing, etc...
Depending on where you live, all these items may be a rounding error in the total cost, with the land prices dominating everything else. But, yes, let's compare the quality of materials. Tell me, what new house has solid hardwood floors (and not laminates that will need replacement in a few years)? My 60-year old house that was built on a budget has solid oak floors. How many modern houses are being built with plastic water pipes (PEX) that won't last as long as the steel used before, or anything like as long as copper pipes?
Yes, some things have got cheaper. Others have become a lot more expensive. You can cherry-pick items and prove either proposition.
The last time I rented from Hertz, I felt ripped-off.
Ripoff 1: I asked for an extra driver. They added the driver without telling me that there would be a charge for this.
Ripoff 2: Despite the fact that I declined the navigation system, they billed me for it. I did get this removed from the bill, but I should not have had to waste my time doing this.
I always thought that Hertz was more expensive but provided better service. Now I know that it's just more expensive.
While I agree that the EU has some real problems, I think what this is more about is that the 1%ers in the UK don't like the fact that they don't totally control politics because of EU rules and that the EU (more specifically EU courts) keep stepping in and stopping them stomping over ordinary citizens.
Yes, the UK does pay into the EU. But what's the net payment? It's much lower. If the UK goes Brexit, the UK will still have to follow many EU rules in order to trade with EU countries, but will have no influence over those rules. You think that's a good idea?
As for immigrants: the UK has many more immigrants because of decisions made by prior UK governments. When the big EU expansion happened, the UK could have opted not to allow citizens of those new EU member states to move to the UK for two years. Other countries did this, the UK didn't. Guess what happened?
Also in TFA, the pilot refers many times to the F35's ability to slow down. In the prior report, the fact that the F35 was not maneuverable with "losing energy" (slowing down) was listed as a problem.
Now, multiply that by millions and millions of customers and add the fact that just about everybody wants them on the same day (with a huge spike in April for the US) and you've got a huge headache on your hands.
1. Disk space is cheap. They could be created and stored
2. Even with the infrastructure needed to generate on the fly, the cost will be less than stuffing and mailing envelopes. Excessive greed at the banks when trying to save costs is probably costing them money. Don't try to save so much per customer and more customers will sign up. It's a win/win situation.
I agree with you entirely. Although my bank claims to make statements available for 7 years, immediately after one of my credit cards was suspended due to fraud, I wasn't able to log in and see any transactions. Paper copies don't have this problem.
For bank statements a 1200/300 baud phone connection should be sufficient.
It should be, but just about every website has so much javascript running on it that very few websites would be usable through a 1200/300 baud phone line.
For years, one of my banks wanted me to go paperless, while not offering anything similar to statements. I could only view transactions on a page (a page that did not print properly).
Then, the bank stated offering PDF downloads. However, when my credit card was suspended due to fraud, I could no longer log in and view that account.
Recently, when preparing for taxes, I downloaded the PDF statements. But getting to each statement took far too many clicks.
What is so hard to understand about the idea that I want 100% reliable and easy access to statements that look like paper statements?
Slight correction, it's not a requirement just to own equipment that can receive broadcasts (e.g. a TV), only to actually receive them.
Wrong. Use is not required for you to break the law, only installation of equipment (with some exceptions for people who install TVs on delivery or demonstrate, test or repair TVs).
You need a TV license if EITHER of the following apply: 1. You own equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV OR 2. You watch TV live through any other means (eg, video-on-demand services). Live in this case means synchronous with program OTA broadcasts.
However, I winder if anyone has challenged the definition of "live". If I an using an Internet based service, it will be delayed by a few milliseconds. Is that "live"?
No, you only need to pay if you actually watch live broadcasts. Owning the equipment does not require a TV license.
You are wrong. A TV license is required if:
1. You install equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV, OR
2. You watch live broadcasts through any medium (including Internet-based video-on-demand services)
So, if you don't have a broadcast TV receiver, option 1 doesn't apply and, if you only watch delayed programming on Internet-based video-on-demand services, option 2 does not apply. That's the loophole.
Hmm...I couldn't find in the article that described exactly what the iPlayer loophole was...?
I think that the loophole is that, as long as you don't watch programs as they are broadcast, you are legally allowed to watch programs using the iPlayer (VoD system) without buying a TV license (~$250/year).
In the UK, if you have equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV signals, you are legally obligated to buy a TV license (irrespective of what you actually watch).
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you were being sarcastic here? Otherwise, I have both a bridge and some fine land in Florida to sell you.
This highlights the real problem: Both parties have been captured and serve the interests of the super-wealthy now. Look at how the justice department under Obama gave a complete pass to the architects of the 2008 crash.
Here is my suggestion to websites that don't want people to use ad-blockers:
Agree that website visitors will be fully compensated for any damage caused by malicious adverts. And when I say "fully", I mean that the website operator will pay for full cleanup of my PC by a qualified IT professional and pay for my loss of productivity because my PC is inaccessible.
Don't want to take on that risk? Then don't block people using ad-blockers.
Perhaps it would be nice to give feedback on why submissions are NOT accepted. I realize that lots of submissions are spam, but as (I think) the person who submitted the story that had the highest comment count so far this year, I would really like to know why you did not think that my rejected submissions were worthy
I did read your response and you have clearly done well for yourself. I have also done well. As an immigrant who moved from a low housing cost area to a high housing cost area, I was very lucky to be able to buy a house when I did. Without buying this house, my finances now would be quite difficult.
However, your and my experience are not relevant. I doubt that they are typical, but more importantly, the issue should be put to graduates coming out of university now. Are they better off than in the past? I think that there were times that recent graduates were significantly better off.
I still think you are cherry picking items. For example, you say that access to advanced health care is better than it was in the past and I agree with you about this. I also suspect that access to routine healthcare may well be worse than in the past.
Perhaps you trust your politicians, but I have been lied to about an issue that affected my business: I was told it wasn't up for discussion for a while, only to have it discussed and a decision made against me before I had a chance to have any input on the decision.
Depending on where you live, all these items may be a rounding error in the total cost, with the land prices dominating everything else. But, yes, let's compare the quality of materials. Tell me, what new house has solid hardwood floors (and not laminates that will need replacement in a few years)? My 60-year old house that was built on a budget has solid oak floors. How many modern houses are being built with plastic water pipes (PEX) that won't last as long as the steel used before, or anything like as long as copper pipes?
Yes, some things have got cheaper. Others have become a lot more expensive. You can cherry-pick items and prove either proposition.
Do the same thing with medical costs in the USA.
To be accurate, the GP's statement could be satisfied if he never stayed at a first-class hotel.
The last time I rented from Hertz, I felt ripped-off.
Ripoff 1: I asked for an extra driver. They added the driver without telling me that there would be a charge for this.
Ripoff 2: Despite the fact that I declined the navigation system, they billed me for it. I did get this removed from the bill, but I should not have had to waste my time doing this.
I always thought that Hertz was more expensive but provided better service. Now I know that it's just more expensive.
While I agree that the EU has some real problems, I think what this is more about is that the 1%ers in the UK don't like the fact that they don't totally control politics because of EU rules and that the EU (more specifically EU courts) keep stepping in and stopping them stomping over ordinary citizens.
Yes, the UK does pay into the EU. But what's the net payment? It's much lower. If the UK goes Brexit, the UK will still have to follow many EU rules in order to trade with EU countries, but will have no influence over those rules. You think that's a good idea?
As for immigrants: the UK has many more immigrants because of decisions made by prior UK governments. When the big EU expansion happened, the UK could have opted not to allow citizens of those new EU member states to move to the UK for two years. Other countries did this, the UK didn't. Guess what happened?
The NSA told Cisco that these back doors are no longer needed.
This is what people get for supporting closed platforms as Mr McCain did (by tweeting, thus adding to the amount of traffic that Twitter publishes).
If anyone expects free speech on a closed platform, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Also in TFA, the pilot refers many times to the F35's ability to slow down. In the prior report, the fact that the F35 was not maneuverable with "losing energy" (slowing down) was listed as a problem.
Perhaps the phone contains unicorns farting rainbows. I am sure that looking for unicorns would be good reason to crack the phone.
1. Disk space is cheap. They could be created and stored
2. Even with the infrastructure needed to generate on the fly, the cost will be less than stuffing and mailing envelopes. Excessive greed at the banks when trying to save costs is probably costing them money. Don't try to save so much per customer and more customers will sign up. It's a win/win situation.
This.
I agree with you entirely. Although my bank claims to make statements available for 7 years, immediately after one of my credit cards was suspended due to fraud, I wasn't able to log in and see any transactions. Paper copies don't have this problem.
It should be, but just about every website has so much javascript running on it that very few websites would be usable through a 1200/300 baud phone line.
For years, one of my banks wanted me to go paperless, while not offering anything similar to statements. I could only view transactions on a page (a page that did not print properly).
Then, the bank stated offering PDF downloads. However, when my credit card was suspended due to fraud, I could no longer log in and view that account.
Recently, when preparing for taxes, I downloaded the PDF statements. But getting to each statement took far too many clicks.
What is so hard to understand about the idea that I want 100% reliable and easy access to statements that look like paper statements?
No it's not a gross exaggeration
Wrong, again. It applies to installing equipment capable of receiving ANY broadcast TV programmes.
See, "installed or used"
Wrong. Use is not required for you to break the law, only installation of equipment (with some exceptions for people who install TVs on delivery or demonstrate, test or repair TVs).
As I have posted elsewhere, you are wrong.
You need a TV license if EITHER of the following apply:
1. You own equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV OR
2. You watch TV live through any other means (eg, video-on-demand services). Live in this case means synchronous with program OTA broadcasts.
However, I winder if anyone has challenged the definition of "live". If I an using an Internet based service, it will be delayed by a few milliseconds. Is that "live"?
You are wrong. A TV license is required if:
1. You install equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV, OR
2. You watch live broadcasts through any medium (including Internet-based video-on-demand services)
So, if you don't have a broadcast TV receiver, option 1 doesn't apply and, if you only watch delayed programming on Internet-based video-on-demand services, option 2 does not apply. That's the loophole.
It's all here
I think that the loophole is that, as long as you don't watch programs as they are broadcast, you are legally allowed to watch programs using the iPlayer (VoD system) without buying a TV license (~$250/year).
In the UK, if you have equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV signals, you are legally obligated to buy a TV license (irrespective of what you actually watch).