I have a tablet. I cannot use it simultaneously with my phone (in the sense that I'm actively doing something that consumes data with one device).

I have a car. I cannot use it simultaneously with my laptop, tablet, and phone.

Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead.

but wouldn't creating an account (in the online banking sense, not a bank account) require a visit to the branch in person?

Money transfers use IBANs or a similar system of account numbers, which are separate from login usernames.

One way is for Service A to establish a trust with Service B (ex. using SAML), and have the user at Service B authorize that usage. Service A and B agree on a unique key for that exchange (ex. private/public certs)

Of course, if Service B offers no such ability, then you'll need some sort of kludge like you suggested, but that doesn't make it right.

a key server appliance

So have you ever worked retail, then? Your earlier statement was based on a lot of fact-free and erroneous assumptions about retail employees, the type of assumptions that almost without fail come only from people who have never worked the floor themselves. You didn't bother to reply to that part - which is the part that more directly relates to this JE.

If by that you mean "progressively more economically conservative at every possible turn", then I agree with you. The horribly regressive income tax brackets that were implemented by the previous CEO in chief still remain in effect, and nobody in Washington has actually done anything about the disappearance of economic opportunity for the middle and lower classes in many decades. We currently have a battle between one party that is too cowardly to actually do anything (those democrats that you so deeply openly hate) and another party that thinks the system should be restructured to guarantee that nobody has any such opportunity (your dear republican party).

You guys really thought you'd be able to punk Obama on this one, didn't you? You started with a state bill that was passed by a conservative governor that didn't accomplish any of the liberal goals that Obama originally aimed for.

You then passed it through the conservative Heritage Foundation before presenting in congress as "the only bill we will sign". You then refused to sign it because you realized it just might make Obama look good if it were to find any kind of public approval. However, you realized that you also put him in a near-perfect pickle by way of the fact that if he vetoed it, he would never see another health care bill during his presidency. Well played. But don't go around fooling yourself into thinking that you can get actual liberals to actually support the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010.

If such a thing happened, that would indeed be terrible. Too bad for your sake no such thing happened. I should not need to remind you of this, but the IRS is explicitly tasked with the enforcement of tax code. If they have reason to believe that someone is cheating on their taxes - say, because they openly advocate for people to do such things - then they are obligated to investigate. It is no different from the DEA investigating members of NORML who spend their free time preaching pro-pot propaganda in states where pot is still illegal.

Just wait. As the country continues to march further to the right, he will soon be considered a centrist candidate.

I would love to see an end to the progressively more conservative policies of our federal government. Unfortunately we haven't had even so much as a left-of-center presidential candidate in decades.