It could be interesting as well to outline things that shouldn't happen. E.g. The ability to suspend websites under the Stop Happiness In Terrorism Act will not be employed to take down a torrent website with no proven connection to terrorists.
I suppose I don't see much a difference between formal salaries and payments by other means.
We definitely need a living wage, and realistically that requires some form of currency once a society grows to a certain size. To change the basic need to have more power than one's peers, which is the root of accumulation of wealth, is a difficult task. Socialism would simply express this need through other means.
That'd be a good start. Have the parties' promises displayed on a big board outside the House of Commons, with promised deadlines and the completion status of each pledge.
Also, let's bring some class back to the house. For every £1000 earned outside of their day job, give them a foot of cloak to wear, with the names of their employers pasted on the cloaks. Good luck to the ones wandering around with cloaks longer than a bus. Include sponsored junkets in the mix, and require they wear their cloaks whenever they're working or travelling on anything but trips paid for themselves or the state.
Forbid them from employing family members who have time commitments that would indicate their inability to do the job for which they are being paid.
Fix their housing allowances to cover only modest renting in London for their time spent there. Base this on the modal income of their constituency, adjusted to be at least as high as the salary of an entry level police sergeant. Right now these fuckers can claim more in housing than most people earn before tax.
What is to stop Amazon from buying up departments stores for a dime right before they finally fold and having Amazon stores, where you can try some things on, order it, and it is at your house by the time you get home?
What would stop Amazon? Sound business sense and reality are what would stop them from doing this.
It doesn't matter whether Amazon would buy sites or lease them - either way it's not going to be a "dime". Paying staff, and costs for 100,000 square feet for showrooms and fitting rooms seems pretty bizarre. They could do a bricks and mortar tie-in, but not at this scale while relying on their existing business model. The idea here is pretty much that the previous guy went bust because of a dying business model, so I'm going to jump in and do pretty much what he did? Maybe a smaller scale store with a specific focus - such as a tie-in to an Amazon specific product. Maybe a store that'd drive business to Kindle?
As it stands, your idea is jam packed with lunacy. The only way I can top your idea is to suggest that Jeff Bezos could drive revenues by publicly shitting in to a box of squirrels.
No, blame both DVD vendors.
They know a big chunk of DVD players will honour the UOP, yet they choose to include it. DVD vendors are not at legal risk for ignoring UOP, while DVD manufacturers who don't honour UOP could find themselves being hassled in the US.
Where DRM is optional, it's the content creator who decides to use it that is at fault. Same with region coding.
That summing up of knights seems a bit like Renaissance fair history. You're right - knights didn't receive monthly bank transfers. In some cases they'd receive land, and the goodies they pillage. This tradition survived well in to era of gunpowder. There would also be knights fulfilling pledges to their lord or a king for which they'd get to keep their power and land, and perhaps rewards in the afterlife. Bards similarly were getting recompense for their work. In short, these were reciprocal arrangements. That they didn't receive salaries doesn't change this. You can't eat fame. This wasn't some medieval reality TV show, and knights used to shit in their armour.
I'd hope the RIAA could find time to explain the economics of the industry. i.e. the chargebacks and other fun instruments used to lessen or entirely remove the need to pay royalties to artists. For additional credit, have the MPAA explain why high grossing films can make a loss because Paramount sent a cut of the revenues to the fucking moon.
Sure. I'd say the NSA and GCHQ are engaged in an Atlantic-wide reach around. It's really not oversight - more some League of Doom thing done out of sight of their respective parents.
Her spores don't easily disperse through the air. We're pretty safe if we dig a trench around her, with a radius of roughly 3 metres. We'll fill the trench with pitch, and ignite it. That's pretty the standard approach to preventing the spread of Miley Cyrus.
She did meth?
This is my surprised face.
Maybe this thing would be improved to post stories to let us know nothing has changed?
Really? So which secret courts in the UK was s.petry referring to? Surely you can point to them? Or could you acknowledge the simple fact that s.petry was going on about the FISA court, yet again?
Europe.... I think I've heard of it.
So if I can't identify a secret court in the UK, this validates your belief that a references to secret courts, in the context of a discussion around British intelligence services, is referring to a US court?
Am I understanding you right? Isn't possible that Petry is wrong about secret courts in the UK, as we do appear to be discussing Britain.
The laws aren't secret, but some of the court decisions have been, and even some of those are being declassified. The courts use ordinary judges that rotate in from other courts, the courts aren't secret, but the warrants are. The oversight comes from Congress, the courts, and the executive branch.
GCHG is a British thing. i.e. not much oversight from US branches of government.
Are you blocking some or all Javascript, or are you using a slightly esoteric browser? Adds are disabled just for me.
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.
