It didn't have a huge wave of immigration. That you would claim it would shows you are not particularly strict with where you get your information, and or how well you check it.
All of your answers have been answered. That you are here complaining about not knowing the answers speaks more to your intellectual laziness than it does the subject at hand.
It turns out the "millennials" are being screwed, by the 2008 crash and its fall-out, by the massively-decreasing middle class, and by austerity measures, to name but a few. This is not esoteric knowledge.
In the EU the subject of the data is in full control. Each entity which collects data must inform the user of what is being collected and precisely why. Collecting something else or using it in a different way can result in prosecution (max. â300,000 Euro fine, will be increased in the updated regulations to 5% global turnover or â20,000,000, whichever is higher). Any third-party using this data (which would have been agreed to by the data subject themselves) also has to abide by these rules. Every data handler is subjected to spot inspections by the authority overseeing compliance. If you don't want it going to your insurance company, don't agree to it, and it becomes illegal for the information in your black box to end up at your insurance company.
The EU also provides (in the new regulations) the right to transfer your data from one device to another, and to receive a full copy at any time (for free). That means you can get a copy of the data and check its accuracy by yourself should you want.
You are also free to opt out of the data collection entirely at any time you wish.
Lots of shit gets talked about the EU, but their data protection laws are pretty fucking awesome for end users. For companies using the data, not so much (I work at one such company), but for a private citizen, they are wonderful.
Under EU laws any data in a black box would be protected by every entity handling it, with complaints of abuse or misuse backed up by some pretty tough laws (which are soon to get even tougher, benefiting the consumer). Data can't just be sent anywhere under EU law - there has to be a reason for having it, a reason for sending it to anyone, a reason for processing it, etc. If any one of those steps has an issue, the data subject can cause merry hell.
Under EU regulations, we have rights to our personal data. The eCall system admittedly stores data which could possibly be used to identify a person, and therefore access to the data must be provided to the user. EU data protection laws are incredibly strong, especially with the next revision. If the eCall provider won't give you your data, you can lodge a complaint (which has teeth).
German has a similar pair: 'mehr' (more) and 'Meer' (sea/ocean). English also has something similar, but less obvious: 'more' and 'marine' (from the latin 'Mare' meaning sea).
It's worked well. You seem rather confused. I await you posting unemployment statistics without the slightest understanding of what they represent, and why they might be skewed in the direction they are...
Seeing as the US told Saddam it had no opinion on "Arab/Arab conflict", green-lighting his invasion, and that the US didn't enter WWII when Germany invaded Poland, I think your points don't really have much merit.
Also, if the US really is the world's police force, it needs to be fired, as it seems to strangely only focus on things that directly benefit it, ignoring widespread suffering in the mean-time.
It's not socialism. You really struggle with words, huh?
Also, the source of that quote is unknown, but it appears to be based on a 1951 article in a Labour magazine from London. So no, it wasn't written by anyone who lived under your idea of socialism. You also seem to struggle with facts... No wonder you always pop up spouting some demonstrable nonsense or misunderstanding.
No-one is saying it is a lifetime guarantee of free money and phones. Your observations of Katrina and the single anecdote you are discussing don't matter, as they are devoid of any actual usable information, and are indistinguishable from fantasy. We need data, and you don't have it.
1) Society needs that child more than it costs society to pay for it, as one day that child will be paying taxes and working 2) Society still needs that child, regardless of whether the parents own their house or rent 3) The US needs immigrants, and is far from full. Hell, most of the western world needs immigration to shore up the coming problem of "too many old folks and not enough workers" which are looming.
Maybe if we didn't have a bunch of people operating on ridiculously short-sighted, superficial appraisals of complicated issues, we'd not have to waste time and energy explaining to people why countries need tax payers.
Which matters not one shred. Sure, it's a nice excuse, but it has no bearing on reality, except for letting everyone know you're not colouring with a full box of crayons.
If you read about the McDonald's coffee case you'd not be so flippant about it. It's not doing your argument any favours, either, as it directly disagrees with your claim. They were clearly at fault, and were suitably punished.
For someone who views themselves as rational, how can you honestly sit there and scream "shills" with a straight face? How can you call someone a "shill" simply for disagreeing with you? You've not demonstrated the person is shilling at all - you've introduced no evidence, and made no case. You are being wonderfully hypocritical and not at all rational.
So you're fine with people smoking near you if you haven't consented and if they are not breaking any laws or regulations? If the answer is "no", you are indeed a hypocrite. If the answer is "yes", shut up already.
But you still drive a car and make people who haven't agreed to breathe your exhaust breathe your exhaust. So yeah - if you drive a car, you are a hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
It didn't have a huge wave of immigration. That you would claim it would shows you are not particularly strict with where you get your information, and or how well you check it.
All of your answers have been answered. That you are here complaining about not knowing the answers speaks more to your intellectual laziness than it does the subject at hand.
It turns out the "millennials" are being screwed, by the 2008 crash and its fall-out, by the massively-decreasing middle class, and by austerity measures, to name but a few. This is not esoteric knowledge.
In the EU the subject of the data is in full control. Each entity which collects data must inform the user of what is being collected and precisely why. Collecting something else or using it in a different way can result in prosecution (max. â300,000 Euro fine, will be increased in the updated regulations to 5% global turnover or â20,000,000, whichever is higher). Any third-party using this data (which would have been agreed to by the data subject themselves) also has to abide by these rules. Every data handler is subjected to spot inspections by the authority overseeing compliance. If you don't want it going to your insurance company, don't agree to it, and it becomes illegal for the information in your black box to end up at your insurance company.
The EU also provides (in the new regulations) the right to transfer your data from one device to another, and to receive a full copy at any time (for free). That means you can get a copy of the data and check its accuracy by yourself should you want.
You are also free to opt out of the data collection entirely at any time you wish.
Lots of shit gets talked about the EU, but their data protection laws are pretty fucking awesome for end users. For companies using the data, not so much (I work at one such company), but for a private citizen, they are wonderful.
Nurse! He's out of bed again!
Not yet. Give it time.
Both strategies are 100% available to the UK within the EU... which it still is, until invoking article 50 and concluding its subsequent talks.
Stop spreading nonsense. You know better.
Under EU laws any data in a black box would be protected by every entity handling it, with complaints of abuse or misuse backed up by some pretty tough laws (which are soon to get even tougher, benefiting the consumer). Data can't just be sent anywhere under EU law - there has to be a reason for having it, a reason for sending it to anyone, a reason for processing it, etc. If any one of those steps has an issue, the data subject can cause merry hell.
Not in the EU. The insurance companies have no right to data you do not voluntarily provide them.
Under EU regulations, we have rights to our personal data. The eCall system admittedly stores data which could possibly be used to identify a person, and therefore access to the data must be provided to the user. EU data protection laws are incredibly strong, especially with the next revision. If the eCall provider won't give you your data, you can lodge a complaint (which has teeth).
Don't forget 'confused by Greek' when describing yourself in the future :)
Why are you putting an entry price on the democratic process? Don't you see something inherently wrong about that?
German has a similar pair: 'mehr' (more) and 'Meer' (sea/ocean). English also has something similar, but less obvious: 'more' and 'marine' (from the latin 'Mare' meaning sea).
You realise the system is fucked up if enough doctors are in the top 1% to cause the healthcare system to fail should they all disappear?
It's worked well. You seem rather confused. I await you posting unemployment statistics without the slightest understanding of what they represent, and why they might be skewed in the direction they are...
Seeing as the US told Saddam it had no opinion on "Arab/Arab conflict", green-lighting his invasion, and that the US didn't enter WWII when Germany invaded Poland, I think your points don't really have much merit.
Also, if the US really is the world's police force, it needs to be fired, as it seems to strangely only focus on things that directly benefit it, ignoring widespread suffering in the mean-time.
And you'd be straight-up murdered by the clue bat. Oh the irony.
European tax rates are actually comparable to US ones, but they include a shit-tonne of useful stuff you won't find in the US.
It's not socialism. You really struggle with words, huh?
Also, the source of that quote is unknown, but it appears to be based on a 1951 article in a Labour magazine from London. So no, it wasn't written by anyone who lived under your idea of socialism. You also seem to struggle with facts... No wonder you always pop up spouting some demonstrable nonsense or misunderstanding.
No-one is saying it is a lifetime guarantee of free money and phones. Your observations of Katrina and the single anecdote you are discussing don't matter, as they are devoid of any actual usable information, and are indistinguishable from fantasy. We need data, and you don't have it.
1) Society needs that child more than it costs society to pay for it, as one day that child will be paying taxes and working
2) Society still needs that child, regardless of whether the parents own their house or rent
3) The US needs immigrants, and is far from full. Hell, most of the western world needs immigration to shore up the coming problem of "too many old folks and not enough workers" which are looming.
Maybe if we didn't have a bunch of people operating on ridiculously short-sighted, superficial appraisals of complicated issues, we'd not have to waste time and energy explaining to people why countries need tax payers.
Which matters not one shred. Sure, it's a nice excuse, but it has no bearing on reality, except for letting everyone know you're not colouring with a full box of crayons.
If you read about the McDonald's coffee case you'd not be so flippant about it. It's not doing your argument any favours, either, as it directly disagrees with your claim. They were clearly at fault, and were suitably punished.
For someone who views themselves as rational, how can you honestly sit there and scream "shills" with a straight face? How can you call someone a "shill" simply for disagreeing with you? You've not demonstrated the person is shilling at all - you've introduced no evidence, and made no case. You are being wonderfully hypocritical and not at all rational.
So you're fine with people smoking near you if you haven't consented and if they are not breaking any laws or regulations? If the answer is "no", you are indeed a hypocrite. If the answer is "yes", shut up already.
But you still drive a car and make people who haven't agreed to breathe your exhaust breathe your exhaust. So yeah - if you drive a car, you are a hypocrite.