They are merely copyrighted. Once I have the license to use it, I can use it in any fashion that I choose. Car analogy? I purchase a brand new Rolls Royce, and drive it straight to a body shop to have it altered to my tastes. Chop the top off, extend the frame. install a suana and a bar, and go cruising around like some Hollywood mogul. Or, instead, I install a collapsible deer stand so that I can go hunting with my hunting club. Rolls certainly didn't envision my use of their brand new car, did they? Do they have any right to interfere with my plans? Hell no!
"consortium of western democracies"
Yeah, I would trust something like the Five Eyes to oversee the internets.
Oh, wait - https://www.privacyinternation...
Since Tesla only sells EVs, it is correct to say "every Tesla". I understand that the government is not picking a company, but it doesn't make Tesla any less dependent on federal aid.
They approached existing dealers first. Only if existing dealers refused to build a dedicated facility would they offer up the territory to a new dealer. I'm sure you could find Saturn dealers who owned no other GM franchises, but I am under the impression that this was rare. I do know one Chevy/Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Pontiac/GMAC dealer who told them to go pound sand.
And GM had the advantage of using their existing dealers. They leaned on them to build new showrooms, but most were existing dealers. It really and truly was just a re-branding effort. The new relationship with labor was interesting, but never really produced an exceptional car.
Not just loans - every Tesla car is "subsidized" by thousands of dollars via a tax write-off for the buyer.
"... the rates are required by law to be based on the probability of that disaster occurring to you, and the cost of treatment."
And even that should probably say "were required" rather than "are required", because since Obamacare was passed, insurance isn't really insurance anymore.
And yet the gas is cheaper than in next-door PA, where you have to get out in the cold. If you end up in NJ frequently, you even time your gas purchases for when you are on the Jersey side.
"That's not what socialism is, that's insurance."
NO. Insurance is a fund YOU pay into, and if some particular disaster you are insured against occurs, they pay you. That's a contract between you and your insurance company, and the payouts are determined (by law) to be based on the probability of that disaster or accident occurring.
However, when you are forced to pay for someone else's insurance, a rates-based-on-probabilty scheme is no longer possible. Instead it becomes nothing more than de facto socialized medicine. The very foundation of what insurance is, according to both the commonly accepted and legal definitions of "insurance", no longer applies. Even more so when you force acceptance of pre-existing conditions. It isn't possible to "insure" against pre-existing conditions! That's not insurance, again by the very definition of what insurance is. It's socialized medicine.
"Are you entirely forgetting about the mandate? Where do you get that fewer young people have insurance? That, like the other anecdotes about huge cost increases, sounds entirely made up."
I'm not "forgetting" about anything. It's a fact you can look up. More and more young people are foregoing insurance altogether, because it's cheaper for them to pay for their own minor health issues and the fine at the end of the year, than to pay the new inflated rates. For the very reason I mentioned above: the rates are no longer tied to THEIR probability of disease or accident, but instead they are forced to pay for other people as well.
Not only is it a fact you can look up, it is a fact that anybody with a brain should have expected to happen, for the reasons I already mentioned.
By the way... I am one of those people. I have zero intention to sign up for Obamacare. And most young people I know are saying the same, if it isn't 100% paid by their employer.
Not only this -- I suspect that a large part of the 90% drop in complaints has to do with the fact that it makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.
I agree with this, BUT...
Having been a victim of what I definitely consider to be police abuse... in a situation in which video that was clearly being made somehow later "went missing", I also have to agree that this very much works both ways.
I agree with the ACLU, to the extent that I agree there should be independent oversight of these videos, and any "missing" video should be a cause for reprimand at the very LEAST.
Because I also happen to live in an area that has experienced many years of police "incidents" in which innocent people somehow end up injured or dead, but there was no independent investigation, and the internal "investigations" have almost invariably exonerated the policeman, even when no reasonable person looking at the same evidence would (or does) conclude that no wrong had been committed.
I agree that most police are probably fine people. I even have relatives who are or have been police. But the few who aren't good can cause a hell of a lot of damage, especially when there is more than one of them and they scratch each others' backs.
Link to Original Source
Hell - even I have my off-days when I don't manage to do any earth shattering. I am my biggest fan, but even so, I'm not always amazed at myself.
I'm one of the users seeing this. The ads are still obvious to me - I assumed that they did it to make the site more mobile-friendly, but it could be a downward slide down your slope.