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).
The tablet's operating system can download updated versions of applications while you are using your phone. Or another member of your family can be using your tablet while you are using your phone.
I have a car. I cannot use it simultaneously with my laptop, tablet, and phone.
You are using a map application on the car's infotainment system, which scrolls after passing through each intersection. Your wife is on the phone with someone at the destination. Your son is in the back seat doing something with the laptop. Your daughter is in the other back seat doing something with the tablet.
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.
If one company owned patents on inventions that turned out to be essential to the difference between dumbphones and smartphones and declined to license them, how many customers would be happy with only one smartphone maker?
but wouldn't creating an account (in the online banking sense, not a bank account) require a visit to the branch in person?
I opened accounts with Ally (a bank) and PayPal (not technically a bank but they act like one) while living in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Ally and PayPal have no branches there.
Money transfers use IBANs or a similar system of account numbers, which are separate from login usernames.
A PayPal user sends money to another PayPal username, which is an e-mail address. Chase is starting a similar system called Chase QuickPay.
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)
So how would the operator of service A prevent the service from stealing service A's private key with service B?
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.
The kludge I suggested is a clunky way to describe the OAuth family of protocols, used by Twitter, Amazon MWS, and the like.
a key server appliance
How much does one of those cost to buy and operate, especially if the rest of service A is small enough to run on shared hosting or a small VPS?
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.
I worked in a theater years ago, at minimum wage or thereabouts, before entering the military. I'm sure that there is some rider whereby this doesn't count.
I'll give you that the country remains on a Progressive course
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).
The policies of the last century, Republican & Democrat, have concentrated power in DC. That you still think we have a plural number of parties is quaint.
the party that brought in ObamaCare
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.
Yeah, that's been debunked: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/ But you keep playing that card as you whistle past the graveyard, girl. Obama's perfidy is too publicly on display. The Democrats own it.
the political targeting of American citizens by the IRS
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.
Your "not one smidgen" argument is thoroughly belied by Lois Lerner's actions. But I don't expect anything resembling honesty from you. Gave that up a long time ago.
Republicans who are speaking of reform, e.g. Cruz, are labeled as "extreme"
Just wait. As the country continues to march further to the right, he will soon be considered a centrist candidate.
I hope so. The prospect of having some actual liberty is a nice one, but Republican and Democrat thieves are standing by to perpetuate the entitlement slavery. So it's not going to be easy
In any case, do you have the courage to demand reform and an end to this idiotic Progressivism?
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.
But, but, but Obama has a pen and a phone and a reset button and stuff! He owns you, and he's all the Progress you get!
What does it matter, on a plane like the 777 that costs $260 to $377 *million* dollars to acquire? That's less than 4 hundreths of a percent of the acquisition cost. 100K$ is peanuts on the scale of costs it takes to acquire and operate a large airliner.
And since it is not, strictly speaking, a piece of *safety* equipment, there's no need to take planes out of service to install it. Just require it on new planes, and maybe retrofit existing large airliners when they're down for major maintenance.
It seems likely to me that the probably reason this device isn't required is engineering conservatism. Before something like this is required, you have to convince people that (a) it's a good idea, and (b) this is a good implementation of that good idea.