You do realize they're not the first to do this... Adobe has been successfully doing the Software-as-rental for Photoshop (and related applications) for years now, and artists everywhere just continue to choke it down.
Now to be fair, most figure 'meh, the company is paying for it!', or rationalize it as a business expense if they're freelance. By contrast, I have no idea what the gaming crowd is going to do with an XBox that's not much more than a coin-op (card-op?) arcade game sitting in their living room.
You realise that Microsoft was doing it before Adobe... Years before.
Most people have never seen a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement... You actually have to pay them yearly per license. Its just that enforcement of payment was previously lawyer based, now they have technical means.
This is just one of the many reasons I remain an ardent PC gamer. My games, on my hard drive, not having to ask permission to run them.
Trump won because there are a lot of people that had their futures taken away by outsourcing and Trump was the first presidential candidate that said they were going to do something about it. If you want to avoid this happening again, stop squealing about Putin and start looking at how to solve this issue. Trump may or may not be a dead man walking but the reason he's there won't go away once he's gone, it will be ripe for someone potentially more competent to tap into it.
Wrong.
Trump won because he was slightly less unpopular than Hillary Clinton, who had a concerted smear campaign orchestrated by a lot of people who are now in prison.
Trump never promised to do anything about outsourcing. He kept crying about "her emails" and pretending that there were a bazilion brown people coming over to destroy their way of life.
The reason Trump is there will disappear once he's gone because all you have to do to remove Trump is pit him against an opponent that is less offensive than Trump and harder to demonise than Hillary Clinton.
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time.
That's because most of the time they don't kill or injure people.
Same as most driver errors do not have criminal proceedings. For mistakes not including a fatality or serious injury, you're dealing with insurance, not the cops.
When people die due to pilot error, the pilot is definitely charged... Its rare because if the pilot is making an error big enough to kill a passenger, the pilot is usually killed as well.
This is the moment, this is the checkpoint where the hype meets reality.
Yep, but the reality train of pain isn't for the job of backup driver... Its for all the idiots who believe autonomous cars mean they can sit back and watch a movie whilst the car does everything.
Because you're still in control of the vehicle, this means you're liable for what the vehicle does.
there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second.
This is why autonomous cars won't be allowed for decades, let alone are right around the corner. Machines are a long way from being able to tell a leaf from a child, most do not even take into account the trajectory of a moving object, as was evidenced in the Uber Arizona case. The pedestrian was detected, but it didn't consider it a hazard.
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car.
Still the driver.
Its the same as it is today, unless a manufacturing defect with the vehicle can be positively identified the responsibility falls to the individual in control of the vehicle. With an autonomous vehicle the person giving the instructions is still in control from a legal standpoint.
German car makers have been doing this since the nineties. BMW was the first to limit their cars to 250km/h (155mp/h). Mercedes, Audi and all the other brands followed voluntarily. Even for motorcycles, there is an international gentlemens agreement. While they are not limited, the maximum speed is only given as 300+ km/h for any bike that could exceed that speed.
Its relatively easy to get that limited removed on German cars though.
If I want to kill myself at 113 MPH, volvo shouldn't stop me.
This is on par with anti-vaxxer logic because it's not your road.
And that is "think of the children" logic.
Whoever said it would be on a public road. It could easily be a private road or track?
The real problem with trying to kill yourself by using a car is that 113 MPH is quite survivable, especially if you're wearing a crash helmet and HANS device like I do when going that fast on a track (and fire resistance race overalls).
Honestly, it's hard to argue against it when it's 32 mph faster than the highest posted limit in the countries the car is sold in.
What people haven't noticed is that this is the same time as all of Volvo's models are going electric. Most electric cars are incapable of going much over 100 MPH. Even a Model 3 tops out at 155 MPH... which is what my M240i (3L turbo petrol) is limited to (170+ MPH sans limiter) however Volvo will be making large FWD SUV's and Saloon cars, not performance cars. I doubt many of them will be capable of reaching 100 MPH, let alone 112.
Besides, the type of driver who gets a Volvo is not going to want to do much more than about 40. VOLVO stands for "Very Obstructive Low Velocity Object".
The threat to your poor sickly mother has to at least be weighed against the threat to other drivers, including someone else's perfectly healthy mother headed down the autobahn to market.
That, and if your auto hits a fat rabbit at 112 mph, you and mother are going to arrive at the hospital in another vehicle... one with lights and a siren.
First off, I drive a manual... Enough of this auto nonsense, I am capable of driving:)
Secondly, I've never been able to buy the argument of "what if someone is bleeding out". It's bollocks. If someone is seriously injured the last thing you want to do is put them in a car and move them. Stabilise them where they are and wait for assistance, call the emergency number in your country if you don't have a clue how to do this, they'll talk you through it. Someone who is bleeding out will only get worse as you speed over potholes in your car with standard suspension and low profile tyres.
There's a reason Ambulances are made from large pickups or vans with custom suspension and driver training is intensive. Someone with a crappy Korean SUV and automatic only license is nowhere near fit to be transporting a patient in critical condition.
Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. should never have had the power they wielded in the past.
As Trump is proving, the only reason they held it was because they never really used it. By the time Trump leaves office (and by that, 2020 at the very latest) his successor may not even be able to pardon a turkey.
Now the special effects and and rubber alien suit will be very obvious.
Am I the only one not excited about this?
Part of the brilliance of Aliens is how it didn't use SFX to create atmosphere. Lighting, scripting, cinematography techniques to cover for the fact they had a limited number of animatronic creatures. I think they had 6 or 12, but used cinematic trickery to make the illusion of thousands. No big budget CG, just good production.
Much like Blade Runner, the original was the best. It doesn't need another version to go along with the 40 already in existence.
Riddle me this... the places in the US that pride themselves on "light regulations" also tend to have the highest incarceration rates. Whereas incarceration rates in Europe tend to be 1/3 to 1/4 of the US average with similar or lower violent crime rates. If the US puts so many people in prison (proportional to population), is it really so lightly regulated?
The difference is that Europe is somewhat more economically regulated than the US, but those regulations generally affect larger corporations, not the average citizen. The US is home of Draconian social regulations that put people in prison, ruin their lives with arrest records, etc and so forth.
Whilst that's a good point, the main reason that our prison populations are lower is because we haven't treated it as an industrial complex. Here on the other side of the pond prisons are still considered the property and responsibility of our respective governments.
There is also a lot more in the US you can go to jail for. If you get caught with drugs on the streets of Paris, Dortmund or Newcastle, you'll at worst get a fine. Possession alone is not a impressionable-able offence unless you've got enough to be dealing (and we mean a lot, not just a few weeks supply). Basically the US system is set up to keep prison populations high, it could cut prisoner numbers significantly just by changing possession to a misdemeanour offence.
Although I know a few people that go there periodically like florida snowbirds because of the insanely low cost of living (you can go there with a small stash of american dollars and live the high life for a year pretty easily), it's a military dictatorship with a king that legally can throw you in jail for 15 years for looking at him wrong. Despite having some "good reviews", I'd be a bit scared to go there, simply due to the ease at which you can get yourself in serious trouble, and the almost complete lack of options if it happens. So them passing a draconian "internet security" law just seems like they're modernizing their laws to keep up with technology. They've got a noose around everything else, this is just in keeping with the theme - piss off the government, rot in jail. Too much walking on eggshells over there for me thanks.
Good. I like visiting Thailand and we don't need any more arseholes there.
For everyone else, I'll let you know about Thailand. Thai people are extremely friendly. The negativity you hear above comes elusively from people who've never been there. You'll find it much easier to break laws in Thailand than in the US or any other western countries for two reasons, 1. the cops will simply take bribes for minor crimes (it's a nice country, but still a 3rd world one) and; 2. Thai laws are for Thais..
That last one is important. If you cause any problems as a foreigner they'll just kick you out (like any other country). Things like the Leste Majesty laws are used as political tools by various parties to attack their enemies, the king pretty much immediately issues a royal pardon to almost everyone convinced by it. Still, it's not a good idea to go around shouting "Fuck the King" in Thailand any more than it's a good idea to go around Compton shouting "Fuck the blacks", some of you may consider this restrictive, but I call it "not being a complete cock". Basically, Thai laws are for Thais, as a tourist or expat, just sit back and enjoy, someone will let you know you're doing something wrong long before it becomes an issue (although Thai culture is to avoid conflict, so you usually have to commit a serious faux-pas before anyone even says anything).
Other than that the basics of living in or visiting any other developing nation applies, don't be a dick, don't get too drunk, don't walk down dark alleys at night, don't accept candy from strangers, check that she's a genetic female before getting back to the room and above all else... Don't get between a local and his hustle. Seriously, most foreigners in places like Thailand murdered are killed because they stuck their nose into someone's business and didn't have the good sense to pull it right out and walk away. You can screw with their women, but don't fuck with their money.
So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag. Batteries already installed in the camera bodies should be fine, but I'm curious how they'll deal with the spares I carry. Typically, one spare per camera body.
Not that I'm about to check my camera gear. I'll deplane before I do so since the airline will refuse to reimburse me for the $15k+ worth of gear in said bag when one of their thugs . . . . er ' baggage handlers ' helps themselves to the contents or bounces it off the pavement.
I suppose, under the new rules, I can just tell the flight attendant that my bag contains fully charged Li-Ion batteries and cannot be checked ?
This should be fun:|
They'll just tell you the bag must be abandoned or sent via ground freight.
Michael O'Leary, Scumbag CEO of one of the worlds worst Airlines, Ryanair has been quoted as saying "Our booking engine is full of passengers who have sworn they will never fly with us again". Not like airlines are really scared of upset customers.
cars are something people want a shopping experience with
No. That is literally the worst part of car ownership.
Then you've been buying cars from the wrong places. Dodgy Dave's used car emporium is like shopping at poundland, you're not there for the ambience, you're there to buy things for a quid each. I tend to shop at nicer places than Poundland.
When buying a £30,000 car I expect someone who knows what their doing and a little bit of ceremony on delivery. When I picked up my M240i the BMW dealer gave me a short unveiling ceremony and a quick run down of the car. Sure it wasn't much but the fact they wanted to make their customers happy and ensure they knew the vehicle counts for a lot... And this was for a 2 series, not a £100,000 7 series.
I can think of a dozen different things about car ownership that have happened to me today that have been worse than buying it. Not the least of which was being stuck behind a Prius doing 20 in a 40 zone. I'd have to say other road users is the worst part of car ownership.
I used that term with a friend of mine who is mixed-race. He told me it was offensive and that it was an Italian slur that referred to a coffee drink where milk and coffee were mixed together. He said that it's not offensive because of it's content, it's because of the way people used it in the past.
The term is believed to be derived from the word for mule (Mulo, Latin Mulus).
Whether it is or isn't a racial slur depends on where it is used. I've encountered it's use in South America amongst people who are generally not that sensitive to potentially racist slurs and not a great deal of historical racism. A black person is regularly called negro... but that's just Spanish for Black. However in American culture, I wouldn't walk around calling people black, even though it's just a description it has negative connotations due to its use in the past.
I might use it in conversation with people I know or places where I know it's safe... But I wouldn't use it in a report to the UN general assembly.
If someone climbs onto a piece of heavy machinery like a crane and proceeds to kill someone - they are still prosecuted. If someone picks up a handgun and shoots someone, they are still prosecuted even if they have no training or knowledge on how to use the handgun.
Ignorance is NOT a defense. Especially in a situation where someone is put into a position of power. You could even extend the prosecution to the people who PUT the CTO in the position, because they knew he / she didn't have the experience or knowledge necessary to execute the job.
I presume you mean "accidentally kills someone".
That is the difference between murder and manslaughter in the UK. A murder is an intentional death, manslaughter is unintentional death with manslaughter being the lesser penalty (the US makes a similar distinction but I don't know the terms, feel free to look them up yourselves). A further distinction is between deliberate and accidental manslaughter, accidental being the lesser penalty. This is why being ignorant of the danger is a legal defence. Any half retarded barrister will try to get your charge downgraded to accidental manslaughter by attempting to demonstrate that you were unaware of the danger or potential for death.
Ignorance is a defence, not all legal defences are all or nothing, a lot of them are designed to get you down to a lesser charge with a more lenient penalty.
This applies to this case, CxO's will claim that this was done without their knowledge, it then becomes the onus of the prosecutor to demonstrate that they had knowledge. I know this seems shitty but justice is blind, so a rich person should have the same presumption of innocent as a poor one.
What we need to worry about is a future where the rich and powerful don't need us. Where virtually everything is done by a small number of machines and a tiny engineering class who serve the ruling class, much like the merchant class served the aristocracy of old in the Dark Ages..
At that point the rich and powerful need to worry about us. The Dark ages which were largely feudal, this means a king didn't wield absolute power, he had lords swear fealty who had lesser nobles swearing fealty to them It was effectively a pyramid scheme. So many kings of Europe were usurped by their own lords. Power and wealth were distributed, of course there was a huge divide between rich and poor, but it was pretty well distributed. National governance like we have now didn't really exist until last century. When a feudal king made a decree, they relied on their lesser nobles to carry it out.
Put simply, the way the government works in Westeros (Game of Thrones)... That's a feudal system.
The thing is, communication is now so fast that a feudal system can't exist. We've reached the point of national government and there's no going back. Every government now exists at the will, or at least the apathy of the people. Even a totalitarian state like China has to keep their subjects happy or face rebellion.
So if the rich decide to get rid of us, there won't be much they can do to stop us. If the richest 50% decided to isolate themselves we'd be able to starve them out. If they decided to declare war on the other 50% they'd quickly lose. 1. Because we tend to be so ingenious that we'll find counters for their weapons, 2. if nothing else, we'll outnumber them 100 to 1.
People who don't realise Ayn Rand was completely retarded need to stop reading Atlas Shrugged.
Check your receipts from the store to see if they accept feedback.
Let them know that the premature Christmas season music was annoying and when you stopped shopping there and when you came back.
Tell them the approximate amount of money they lost.
Supposedly, they would be interested and might see you as an indicator of lost sales.
I live the US and have noted that many stores have Christmas stuff out for purchase in October. Back on topic, I rarely notice music at the places I buy groceries, and my department stores have live piano music (I go there for the clothes, not the music).
I used to live in Australia and it was the same. Christmas stuff was out by October, all over the store and Christmas music was starting to rear its ugly head. Lights up fecking everywhere.
In the UK it's a bit better, the Christmas stuff was still available in October, but it was restricted to the "seasonal" aisle. Not every store plays Christmas Music, Most Tesco's don't play music at all, Morrisons didn't change their music... ASDA did but they are owned by Walmart.
Christmas in the UK is generally toned down here in the UK, considerably less garish. Few places I've been are better for Christmas if you hate the garish version you get in the US and Australia.
Check your receipts from the store to see if they accept feedback.
Let them know that the premature Christmas season music was annoying and when you stopped shopping there and when you came back.
Tell them the approximate amount of money they lost.
Supposedly, they would be interested and might see you as an indicator of lost sales.
Of course they all "accept" feedback. I take it you're an American so you're unfamiliar with the culture here in the UK. Complaints are universally ignored. In fact every complaints department in the UK is staffed by Helen Waite, so effectively all our complaints go to Helen Waite.
Does anyone actually pay any attention to 'reviews' before they go see a movie? Or do they watch previews and make up their own mind?
I usually wait to see what my friends think.
People who do review bombing usually lack friends.
Professional reviewers can be paid to lie. Amateur reviewers don't even need to be paid to lie. I'm familiar with my friends tastes and expectations, so I have a reasonable baseline to compare it to.
Captain Marvel was caught in a explosion in 1969. In 1977 it was revealed that Carol Danvers inherited his powers to become Ms Marvel. So folks have had since 1977 to deal with this. It's not like Marvel suddenly looked at the Trump administration and MAGA folks and said, "Let's take away their cherished male superhero!"
Get out of here with your facts and reasons good sir... I said get out.
How many white male superheros are there in the MCU... Spiderman, Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man... That is just off the top of my head. You get one female lead that isn't overly sexualised and all the repressed incels lose their shit over it. Its not like they actually replaced a male lead with a female one.
What I want to know is if the movie is any good. MCU has been quite lacklustre of late. I usually wait for them to be released on In-Flight Entertainment systems. If there is one place I want to switch my brain off it's compressed into an economy class seat at 38,000 ft over the Atlantic and the MCU are good switch your brain off movies..
The idea that people can read and understand terms and conditions is ridiculous. The idea that people knowingly agree to Ts and Cs is a lie. The Ts&Cs are too long for even a lawyer to read: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.
Hence why these documents are not enforceable in court. In the UK you have the legal concept of the "reasonable man" and that any contract must be understandable by the reasonable man in order to be enforceable. At best they protect the company against being sued by their customers, but even then it doesn't magically indemnify them, especially against consumer rights.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize they're not the first to do this... Adobe has been successfully doing the Software-as-rental for Photoshop (and related applications) for years now, and artists everywhere just continue to choke it down.
Now to be fair, most figure 'meh, the company is paying for it!', or rationalize it as a business expense if they're freelance. By contrast, I have no idea what the gaming crowd is going to do with an XBox that's not much more than a coin-op (card-op?) arcade game sitting in their living room.
You realise that Microsoft was doing it before Adobe... Years before.
Most people have never seen a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement... You actually have to pay them yearly per license. Its just that enforcement of payment was previously lawyer based, now they have technical means.
This is just one of the many reasons I remain an ardent PC gamer. My games, on my hard drive, not having to ask permission to run them.
Trump won because there are a lot of people that had their futures taken away by outsourcing and Trump was the first presidential candidate that said they were going to do something about it. If you want to avoid this happening again, stop squealing about Putin and start looking at how to solve this issue. Trump may or may not be a dead man walking but the reason he's there won't go away once he's gone, it will be ripe for someone potentially more competent to tap into it.
Wrong.
Trump won because he was slightly less unpopular than Hillary Clinton, who had a concerted smear campaign orchestrated by a lot of people who are now in prison.
Trump never promised to do anything about outsourcing. He kept crying about "her emails" and pretending that there were a bazilion brown people coming over to destroy their way of life.
The reason Trump is there will disappear once he's gone because all you have to do to remove Trump is pit him against an opponent that is less offensive than Trump and harder to demonise than Hillary Clinton.
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time.
That's because most of the time they don't kill or injure people.
Same as most driver errors do not have criminal proceedings. For mistakes not including a fatality or serious injury, you're dealing with insurance, not the cops.
When people die due to pilot error, the pilot is definitely charged... Its rare because if the pilot is making an error big enough to kill a passenger, the pilot is usually killed as well.
This is the moment, this is the checkpoint where the hype meets reality.
Yep, but the reality train of pain isn't for the job of backup driver... Its for all the idiots who believe autonomous cars mean they can sit back and watch a movie whilst the car does everything.
Because you're still in control of the vehicle, this means you're liable for what the vehicle does.
there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second.
This is why autonomous cars won't be allowed for decades, let alone are right around the corner. Machines are a long way from being able to tell a leaf from a child, most do not even take into account the trajectory of a moving object, as was evidenced in the Uber Arizona case. The pedestrian was detected, but it didn't consider it a hazard.
Still the driver.
Its the same as it is today, unless a manufacturing defect with the vehicle can be positively identified the responsibility falls to the individual in control of the vehicle. With an autonomous vehicle the person giving the instructions is still in control from a legal standpoint.
German car makers have been doing this since the nineties. BMW was the first to limit their cars to 250km/h (155mp/h). Mercedes, Audi and all the other brands followed voluntarily. Even for motorcycles, there is an international gentlemens agreement. While they are not limited, the maximum speed is only given as 300+ km/h for any bike that could exceed that speed.
Its relatively easy to get that limited removed on German cars though.
If I want to kill myself at 113 MPH, volvo shouldn't stop me.
This is on par with anti-vaxxer logic because it's not your road.
And that is "think of the children" logic.
Whoever said it would be on a public road. It could easily be a private road or track?
The real problem with trying to kill yourself by using a car is that 113 MPH is quite survivable, especially if you're wearing a crash helmet and HANS device like I do when going that fast on a track (and fire resistance race overalls).
Honestly, it's hard to argue against it when it's 32 mph faster than the highest posted limit in the countries the car is sold in.
What people haven't noticed is that this is the same time as all of Volvo's models are going electric. Most electric cars are incapable of going much over 100 MPH. Even a Model 3 tops out at 155 MPH... which is what my M240i (3L turbo petrol) is limited to (170+ MPH sans limiter) however Volvo will be making large FWD SUV's and Saloon cars, not performance cars. I doubt many of them will be capable of reaching 100 MPH, let alone 112.
Besides, the type of driver who gets a Volvo is not going to want to do much more than about 40. VOLVO stands for "Very Obstructive Low Velocity Object".
The threat to your poor sickly mother has to at least be weighed against the threat to other drivers, including someone else's perfectly healthy mother headed down the autobahn to market.
That, and if your auto hits a fat rabbit at 112 mph, you and mother are going to arrive at the hospital in another vehicle... one with lights and a siren.
First off, I drive a manual... Enough of this auto nonsense, I am capable of driving :)
Secondly, I've never been able to buy the argument of "what if someone is bleeding out". It's bollocks. If someone is seriously injured the last thing you want to do is put them in a car and move them. Stabilise them where they are and wait for assistance, call the emergency number in your country if you don't have a clue how to do this, they'll talk you through it. Someone who is bleeding out will only get worse as you speed over potholes in your car with standard suspension and low profile tyres.
There's a reason Ambulances are made from large pickups or vans with custom suspension and driver training is intensive. Someone with a crappy Korean SUV and automatic only license is nowhere near fit to be transporting a patient in critical condition.
And I'm not a slow driver in the slightest.
Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. should never have had the power they wielded in the past.
As Trump is proving, the only reason they held it was because they never really used it. By the time Trump leaves office (and by that, 2020 at the very latest) his successor may not even be able to pardon a turkey.
Now the special effects and and rubber alien suit will be very obvious.
Am I the only one not excited about this?
Part of the brilliance of Aliens is how it didn't use SFX to create atmosphere. Lighting, scripting, cinematography techniques to cover for the fact they had a limited number of animatronic creatures. I think they had 6 or 12, but used cinematic trickery to make the illusion of thousands. No big budget CG, just good production.
Much like Blade Runner, the original was the best. It doesn't need another version to go along with the 40 already in existence.
Riddle me this... the places in the US that pride themselves on "light regulations" also tend to have the highest incarceration rates. Whereas incarceration rates in Europe tend to be 1/3 to 1/4 of the US average with similar or lower violent crime rates. If the US puts so many people in prison (proportional to population), is it really so lightly regulated?
The difference is that Europe is somewhat more economically regulated than the US, but those regulations generally affect larger corporations, not the average citizen. The US is home of Draconian social regulations that put people in prison, ruin their lives with arrest records, etc and so forth.
Whilst that's a good point, the main reason that our prison populations are lower is because we haven't treated it as an industrial complex. Here on the other side of the pond prisons are still considered the property and responsibility of our respective governments.
There is also a lot more in the US you can go to jail for. If you get caught with drugs on the streets of Paris, Dortmund or Newcastle, you'll at worst get a fine. Possession alone is not a impressionable-able offence unless you've got enough to be dealing (and we mean a lot, not just a few weeks supply). Basically the US system is set up to keep prison populations high, it could cut prisoner numbers significantly just by changing possession to a misdemeanour offence.
Although I know a few people that go there periodically like florida snowbirds because of the insanely low cost of living (you can go there with a small stash of american dollars and live the high life for a year pretty easily), it's a military dictatorship with a king that legally can throw you in jail for 15 years for looking at him wrong. Despite having some "good reviews", I'd be a bit scared to go there, simply due to the ease at which you can get yourself in serious trouble, and the almost complete lack of options if it happens. So them passing a draconian "internet security" law just seems like they're modernizing their laws to keep up with technology. They've got a noose around everything else, this is just in keeping with the theme - piss off the government, rot in jail. Too much walking on eggshells over there for me thanks.
Good. I like visiting Thailand and we don't need any more arseholes there.
For everyone else, I'll let you know about Thailand. Thai people are extremely friendly. The negativity you hear above comes elusively from people who've never been there. You'll find it much easier to break laws in Thailand than in the US or any other western countries for two reasons, 1. the cops will simply take bribes for minor crimes (it's a nice country, but still a 3rd world one) and; 2. Thai laws are for Thais..
That last one is important. If you cause any problems as a foreigner they'll just kick you out (like any other country). Things like the Leste Majesty laws are used as political tools by various parties to attack their enemies, the king pretty much immediately issues a royal pardon to almost everyone convinced by it. Still, it's not a good idea to go around shouting "Fuck the King" in Thailand any more than it's a good idea to go around Compton shouting "Fuck the blacks", some of you may consider this restrictive, but I call it "not being a complete cock". Basically, Thai laws are for Thais, as a tourist or expat, just sit back and enjoy, someone will let you know you're doing something wrong long before it becomes an issue (although Thai culture is to avoid conflict, so you usually have to commit a serious faux-pas before anyone even says anything).
Other than that the basics of living in or visiting any other developing nation applies, don't be a dick, don't get too drunk, don't walk down dark alleys at night, don't accept candy from strangers, check that she's a genetic female before getting back to the room and above all else... Don't get between a local and his hustle. Seriously, most foreigners in places like Thailand murdered are killed because they stuck their nose into someone's business and didn't have the good sense to pull it right out and walk away. You can screw with their women, but don't fuck with their money.
So I'm curious how this is going to work when I bring my Camera bag ( Think Tank Glass Limo ) with me as a carry-on and the flight attendant tells me there isn't any room and I will need to check my bag. Batteries already installed in the camera bodies should be fine, but I'm curious how they'll deal with the spares I carry. Typically, one spare per camera body.
Not that I'm about to check my camera gear. I'll deplane before I do so since the airline will refuse to reimburse me for the $15k+ worth of gear in said bag when one of their thugs . . . . er ' baggage handlers ' helps themselves to the contents or bounces it off the pavement.
I suppose, under the new rules, I can just tell the flight attendant that my bag contains fully charged Li-Ion batteries and cannot be checked ?
This should be fun :|
They'll just tell you the bag must be abandoned or sent via ground freight.
Michael O'Leary, Scumbag CEO of one of the worlds worst Airlines, Ryanair has been quoted as saying "Our booking engine is full of passengers who have sworn they will never fly with us again". Not like airlines are really scared of upset customers.
cars are something people want a shopping experience with
No. That is literally the worst part of car ownership.
Then you've been buying cars from the wrong places. Dodgy Dave's used car emporium is like shopping at poundland, you're not there for the ambience, you're there to buy things for a quid each. I tend to shop at nicer places than Poundland.
When buying a £30,000 car I expect someone who knows what their doing and a little bit of ceremony on delivery. When I picked up my M240i the BMW dealer gave me a short unveiling ceremony and a quick run down of the car. Sure it wasn't much but the fact they wanted to make their customers happy and ensure they knew the vehicle counts for a lot... And this was for a 2 series, not a £100,000 7 series.
I can think of a dozen different things about car ownership that have happened to me today that have been worse than buying it. Not the least of which was being stuck behind a Prius doing 20 in a 40 zone. I'd have to say other road users is the worst part of car ownership.
I used that term with a friend of mine who is mixed-race. He told me it was offensive and that it was an Italian slur that referred to a coffee drink where milk and coffee were mixed together. He said that it's not offensive because of it's content, it's because of the way people used it in the past.
The term is believed to be derived from the word for mule (Mulo, Latin Mulus).
Whether it is or isn't a racial slur depends on where it is used. I've encountered it's use in South America amongst people who are generally not that sensitive to potentially racist slurs and not a great deal of historical racism. A black person is regularly called negro... but that's just Spanish for Black. However in American culture, I wouldn't walk around calling people black, even though it's just a description it has negative connotations due to its use in the past.
I might use it in conversation with people I know or places where I know it's safe... But I wouldn't use it in a report to the UN general assembly.
"Millennials" are no longer "children", you're thinking of "Generation Z" - Since you wanted to be a troll, troll correctly dipshit.
Millennials are
A catch all term used by angry, constipated people to demonise anyone they don't like that happen to be younger.
100% Nope.
If someone climbs onto a piece of heavy machinery like a crane and proceeds to kill someone - they are still prosecuted. If someone picks up a handgun and shoots someone, they are still prosecuted even if they have no training or knowledge on how to use the handgun.
Ignorance is NOT a defense. Especially in a situation where someone is put into a position of power. You could even extend the prosecution to the people who PUT the CTO in the position, because they knew he / she didn't have the experience or knowledge necessary to execute the job.
I presume you mean "accidentally kills someone".
That is the difference between murder and manslaughter in the UK. A murder is an intentional death, manslaughter is unintentional death with manslaughter being the lesser penalty (the US makes a similar distinction but I don't know the terms, feel free to look them up yourselves). A further distinction is between deliberate and accidental manslaughter, accidental being the lesser penalty. This is why being ignorant of the danger is a legal defence. Any half retarded barrister will try to get your charge downgraded to accidental manslaughter by attempting to demonstrate that you were unaware of the danger or potential for death.
Ignorance is a defence, not all legal defences are all or nothing, a lot of them are designed to get you down to a lesser charge with a more lenient penalty.
This applies to this case, CxO's will claim that this was done without their knowledge, it then becomes the onus of the prosecutor to demonstrate that they had knowledge. I know this seems shitty but justice is blind, so a rich person should have the same presumption of innocent as a poor one.
What we need to worry about is a future where the rich and powerful don't need us. Where virtually everything is done by a small number of machines and a tiny engineering class who serve the ruling class, much like the merchant class served the aristocracy of old in the Dark Ages. .
At that point the rich and powerful need to worry about us. The Dark ages which were largely feudal, this means a king didn't wield absolute power, he had lords swear fealty who had lesser nobles swearing fealty to them It was effectively a pyramid scheme. So many kings of Europe were usurped by their own lords. Power and wealth were distributed, of course there was a huge divide between rich and poor, but it was pretty well distributed. National governance like we have now didn't really exist until last century. When a feudal king made a decree, they relied on their lesser nobles to carry it out.
Put simply, the way the government works in Westeros (Game of Thrones)... That's a feudal system.
The thing is, communication is now so fast that a feudal system can't exist. We've reached the point of national government and there's no going back. Every government now exists at the will, or at least the apathy of the people. Even a totalitarian state like China has to keep their subjects happy or face rebellion.
So if the rich decide to get rid of us, there won't be much they can do to stop us. If the richest 50% decided to isolate themselves we'd be able to starve them out. If they decided to declare war on the other 50% they'd quickly lose. 1. Because we tend to be so ingenious that we'll find counters for their weapons, 2. if nothing else, we'll outnumber them 100 to 1.
People who don't realise Ayn Rand was completely retarded need to stop reading Atlas Shrugged.
U.K. Royal Mail.
They were meant to be built in Essex, but the stones were delivered by DPD.
Check your receipts from the store to see if they accept feedback. Let them know that the premature Christmas season music was annoying and when you stopped shopping there and when you came back. Tell them the approximate amount of money they lost.
Supposedly, they would be interested and might see you as an indicator of lost sales.
I live the US and have noted that many stores have Christmas stuff out for purchase in October. Back on topic, I rarely notice music at the places I buy groceries, and my department stores have live piano music (I go there for the clothes, not the music).
I used to live in Australia and it was the same. Christmas stuff was out by October, all over the store and Christmas music was starting to rear its ugly head. Lights up fecking everywhere.
In the UK it's a bit better, the Christmas stuff was still available in October, but it was restricted to the "seasonal" aisle. Not every store plays Christmas Music, Most Tesco's don't play music at all, Morrisons didn't change their music... ASDA did but they are owned by Walmart.
Christmas in the UK is generally toned down here in the UK, considerably less garish. Few places I've been are better for Christmas if you hate the garish version you get in the US and Australia.
Check your receipts from the store to see if they accept feedback.
Let them know that the premature Christmas season music was annoying and when you stopped shopping there and when you came back.
Tell them the approximate amount of money they lost.
Supposedly, they would be interested and might see you as an indicator of lost sales.
Of course they all "accept" feedback. I take it you're an American so you're unfamiliar with the culture here in the UK. Complaints are universally ignored. In fact every complaints department in the UK is staffed by Helen Waite, so effectively all our complaints go to Helen Waite.
Does anyone actually pay any attention to 'reviews' before they go see a movie? Or do they watch previews and make up their own mind?
I usually wait to see what my friends think.
People who do review bombing usually lack friends.
Professional reviewers can be paid to lie. Amateur reviewers don't even need to be paid to lie. I'm familiar with my friends tastes and expectations, so I have a reasonable baseline to compare it to.
Captain Marvel was caught in a explosion in 1969. In 1977 it was revealed that Carol Danvers inherited his powers to become Ms Marvel. So folks have had since 1977 to deal with this. It's not like Marvel suddenly looked at the Trump administration and MAGA folks and said, "Let's take away their cherished male superhero!"
Get out of here with your facts and reasons good sir... I said get out.
How many white male superheros are there in the MCU... Spiderman, Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man... That is just off the top of my head. You get one female lead that isn't overly sexualised and all the repressed incels lose their shit over it. Its not like they actually replaced a male lead with a female one.
What I want to know is if the movie is any good. MCU has been quite lacklustre of late. I usually wait for them to be released on In-Flight Entertainment systems. If there is one place I want to switch my brain off it's compressed into an economy class seat at 38,000 ft over the Atlantic and the MCU are good switch your brain off movies..
The idea that people can read and understand terms and conditions is ridiculous. The idea that people knowingly agree to Ts and Cs is a lie. The Ts&Cs are too long for even a lawyer to read:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.
Hence why these documents are not enforceable in court. In the UK you have the legal concept of the "reasonable man" and that any contract must be understandable by the reasonable man in order to be enforceable. At best they protect the company against being sued by their customers, but even then it doesn't magically indemnify them, especially against consumer rights.
It's far worse in Japan. I don't know how staff there put up with it.
70 people per day top themselves in Japan.