This is just the tiniest fraction of what we can do with our banks over here; I just can't get over how backwards US banks are and how they can't seem to get into the modern world. Not only do we have instant free transfers (and to Americans: the ability to conveniently or easily pay absolutely anyone, anywhere, any time with just a computer or smartphone is a much bigger deal than you're thinking... it's so easy that it's to the point that when people want to collect money for a gift for a coworker, rather than going around asking for cash, they just put the destination account in the email).

The banks are also connected more closely to other major billing systems. For example, there's a page in your bank account to let you add credit to pay-as-you-go phones. Not just your phones, but anyone's in the country, all in one system, so I can fill up a friend's phone or what not.

All our bills come straight into our bank accounts. Not most of them - ALL of them, everything from rent to the gardener. All payable with a single select-and-submit interface (with delay pay options, of course). There's a page for charity listings, too, to make it easier to give - heck, there's even a stock trading section built in and the like.

  All of your documents associated with the bills are automatically filed into your bank account, you just click on the documents section and you can view, say, your wage slips or bills, from many years in the past if you want. Not like you typically need them, everything is automatically submitted through to our taxes - for most people, taxes are just a log-in to the tax site and click through a couple pages, and they're done, it just takes a couple minutes.

Single system (despite competition in the banking industry). Everyone's on it. Everyone uses it. And it works really, really well. To give an example: checks have become so rare that cashiers in banks look at them funny and often have to get their managers to figure out what to do with them ;)

Yes, it is all about copyright law.

But for what it's worth, the GPL doesn't even really relinquish any of the restrictions of copyright law either. Copyright law says that you need explicit permission from the copyright holder to copy a work or to create a derivative work of it. The GPL explicitly grants such permission to anyone who agrees to abide by the terms of the license. If you don't agree to abide by the terms (by failing to abide by them), then the terms of the license are simply not applicable to you, and you have not received permission to copy the work or create a derivative work in the first place.

Simple.

When I (living in an EU country) need to transfer money to someone, I
* start up my bank's app (for me, it's an Android app, but it's available for iPhone as well) and log in
* ask the person for their bank account number (or pick it from a list of previous transfers)
* enter the amount
* press "send" and validate with my electronic ID.

It takes all of ten seconds, and there's no fee involved. The money usually shows up in the receiver's account immediately.

When I get a bill, I use the same app to OCR it (using my phone's camera), pick an account to debit, and store it to be processed on a date I choose. Takes about ten seconds per bill, then I send them all at once to the bank with one security validation.

I haven't been at a physical bank location in seven years, and the only reason I went there then was to get a mortgage. I haven't been to a physical bank location to pay bills this century.

So yeah. If this is news for Americans, you really do live in the dark ages of banking.

It's not the World Trade Center, and it's not Bali. It's a single cafe and a maximum possible body count than your typical school shooting in the US (which can hardly hold the news media's attention for more than a week any more).

This news wouldn't have made it out of Australia (if even NSW) if it weren't for the Islamic bogeyman angle.

From the above post, to which I responded.... (emphasis mine)

English is the standard language of business because a huge majority of the businesses...

I do not disagree with this assertion... I was only trying to point out is no "official" language for anything that is practiced worldwide... although there can easily be a standard one. The very definition of the adjective official means that it must be designated as such by some recognized authority, and there is no single recognized authority that governs how the entire world communicates, even if there are extremely widely recognized standards that are followed. A company can have its own official language for doing business, because it can be an authority for everyone who works in that company, but it cannot be an authority for how any other company does business. Companies communicate with other companies for business purposes based on *standard* practice, not because anyone ever made the mechanisms "official", because nobody ever did, and I was merely suggesting that the poster to whom I had responded above was conflating those two terms.

In a nutshell, "standard" != "official".

Exactly... *standard*... Not "official", which suggests an official organization sch as a government designating it as such.

Worse, on the surface it would appear to even be opposed to driving your kids to school on your way to work instead of forcing them to take a taxi or at least public transit.

Think of the children!

Yeah. I went there. :)

You appear to be conflating the terms "official" and "standard".

Isn't that the whole idea behind capitalism in the first place? Make people act against their will and work for a company without being able to quit? Sure, you can quit working for a specific company, but it's a bit harder to quit working for any company.

There's some delicious irony in forcing the company owners into the same shoes as their employees - I approve of your idea :)

~ What do you think professor? Does it prove the existence of dark matter?

~ This? Oh, bless your heart, no, my young assistant. This is just chatter from some ancient interstellar civilization. Trade negotiations if I'm not mistaken.

~ Gosh, you're right, professor, I should have realized that myself.

~ Yes, completely useless I'm afraid. Fear not, we'll find the evidence someday.

.

Do you believe that society would be better off if it no longer permitted freedom of religion at all? If it were revoked from the charter of basic human rights and freedoms, what do you think the ramifications would be?

You know he'd know that it's not illegal. Not that he's that keen on surveillance in the first place, but....

.

In fact, he'd be safer in Sweden than the UK. EAW regulations require that extradition to a third party requires the sent of both the sending state (UK) and the receiving state (Sweden), rather than just the sending or receiving states alone. And Sweden has among the most restrictive extradition treaties in Europe, with a flat-out ban on extradition for intelligence or military crimes - which is why Assange was applying for a residence permit and moving Wikileaks' main base of operation there in the first place (he repeatedly called Sweden his "shield" in interviews.. right up to when he became wanted for rape, when suddenly Sweden transformed into an evil US lackey... funny how that works!). Sweden is home to hundreds of US defectors and is the country that sheltered Edward Lee Howard (highest profile CIA defector to the Soviets during the Cold War) from the US. In fact, their prime minister back then is the same foreign minister (Carl Bildt) that Assange rails against.

I think people are all too quick to credit every action Putin takes as being part of some grant overarching plan. Does one think his grand overarching plan included the Ruble falling 40% and the economy solidly on path to contraction after a bunch of failed poorly thought-out attempts to bolster them while turning Ukraine from a militarily-incompetent country with a largely very pro-Russian population into a Russia-hating country full of veterans and causing its neighbors to start clamouring for (and in some cases, getting) NATO bases that NATO had previously been reluctant to do?

Putin's not some brilliant chessmaster pulling all the strings, but nor is he some sort of bumbling fool. He's just a person. He's made some moves in the past that have turned out to be excellent strategically. He's also made a number of blunders. But he's now committed to this path, so he has to walk it wherever it takes him. Given his style, he'll probably keep doubling down.

Which is why he's surrendered to police custody and stood trial, right?