The argument will be that its not a bank, (I mean, who wants to trust those things?), and the money is merely travelling in a conveyance

I dont see an issue with that, as UK schools also ban a lot of other things during "free time" (its not actually time without restriction), for example leaving the school grounds for most of the school body (when you get into sixth form, you gain more freedoms as you are deemed to be there voluntarily).

Yup, been buying up spares for a year or so now, I started thinking something was up when they had major stock issues, and theyve never really recovered from that so. I have maybe 10 pairs of my favourites tucked away now.

You can do digital preservation without distributing copies to the general public.

Yeah, I know Im going to get downvoted for that, but thats the crux of the issue here - it isnt the fact that the item is being preserved, that can be done entirely privately until the copyright expires, its about the fact that those people involved in the preservation want to release it immediately to the public. They want immediate gratification for their efforts.

Thank the Trump-Lord that coal and natural gas plants are free, eh?

Same.

Most of my email these days is for other “me’s”, its getting to the point that the address is unusable and Ive been considering moving away from it.

It doesnt help that Gmails spam filtering is also shite now, and I get 50-60 spam emails into my inbox a day.

Exactly the same as the approach to the movie version of The Martian.

Yup, because those people intentionally looking to mislead or defraud others through the use of AI fakes are certainly going to follow this law to the letter...

Im sorry, but a whole load of those justifications are bullshit.

Yes, but 6.9m of those 27.6m don't have a car in the first place, and pretty obviously,

And how many of those 27.6m will have multiple vehicles?

and pretty obviously, those are more likely to be the households without the ability to park a car off-street.

No, thats very far from "obvious" at all. Very very far. So far, that its a reach.

Did you even look at the Google Maps link I sent? I'd say that under the current approach, a good proportion of the city of Norwich would not be able to charge their vehicle at home because they have no chance of off road parking.

- that still leaves at least 70% of cars / households able to charge at home offstreet compared to 0% able to refuel at home offstreet, which is a massive win for tens of millions of people, and obviously reduces pressure on the public charging network

The reason this doesnt matter for ICE is because refuelling ICE vehicles is a 5 minute matter and the infrastructure has been around to do that for what, a hundred years now?

Meanwhile, the infrastructure for charging EV vehicles anywhere other than very very specific locations right now is non-existent, and will consist of a MASSIVE build out which hasnt even started yet.

- tons of solutions for on-street charging are rolling out, from lamp-post to bollards to gullies

The problem is not that solutions theoretically exist, its that they are yet to be implemented on the scale required in order to achieve the switch over from ICE to EV that governments want to see.

Where is the funding for the roll out of those solutions? Wheres the wide scale planning for implementing those solutions?

- there's tons of other places to charge, including workplace charging

Laughable if you consider that most people don't have a parking spot at work and have to park either on-street near their work place or in a commercial car park. So the same issues apply here as well.

In addition to that, if EV charging spots arent excessively available in numbers then you are going to have an issue where someone parks up, hooks up and sits there for 8 hours while they work.

Once again its an issue of available infrastructure - 10 EV charge points for a road of 50 houses simply isnt going to cut it. You are going to have to have 50 charge points otherwise the shit is going to hit the fan at some point. And we both know that no government, local or national, is going to provide enough charging points for those that dont have off-road parking of their own.

- cars only need to be charged once every 10 to 14 days in the UK, given how much the average car is driven per day

Sorry but I want the ability to drive whatever distance I like at the drop of a hat, which means that my car would be plugged in whenever Im not using it to achieve that. My wife is a doctor who is regularly on call, so she *has* to be able to drive whatever distance she wants at the drop of a hat.

My problem is not EVs, my problem is the lack of infrastructure to support EVs and the timeline that governments want to have the general populace to switch over to EVs wholesale - there are deadlines in place, but theres absolutely fuck all funding at the scale required in order to build the corresponding infrastructure out.

People are used to the availability of "drive to the other end of the country and back again" at the drop of a hat in terms of infrastructure which supports that - for EV that does not exist right now, and its not going to exist a decade from now which is 5 years after the ICE ban in the UK - theres no mass roll out even planned yet, its all handwaving about "solutions exist for that". Great, put the solutions in place then!

Right now, successive governments have basically said "after 2030 you cant buy ICE vehicles - good luck!".

We saw more movement and planning around cable TV back in the 1980s and 1990s - this is so much more fundamentally important, and yet we arent seeing roads being dug up, or even being planned to be dug up.

That article is very nuanced - the exact wording is "18 million (65%) of Britain’s 27.6 million households having – or with the potential to have – enough off-street parking to accommodate at least one car or van".

Note the "or with the potential to have" - thats going to be peoples front or back gardens, with corresponding changes to drop curbs etc. Which still means significant investment at a property level to allow for that - who is going to pay for that?

Look at the streets here and tell me how these properties are going to fit into that report...

https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

Theres still a lot more to it than purchase price, unfortunately.

When I was living in the UK, more than half the place I lived in would have had zero ability to charge an EV - the parking options were either on-road (and if you were lucky, within 3 streets of your house), or if you won the council lottery then you rented a garage within the local area. And no, you couldnt add an EV charger to the garage.

Where I live now, I have off street parking and the ability to add an EV charger - I fully expect my next car to be an EV.

But if I wasnt living here, if I was still living in the UK, then the problem of on-street parking and charging would still be a major blocker that I dont see being solved, properly solved, any time soon.

Contracts, or portions of contracts that license existing IP for government use do not typically gain any rights whatsoever to the products beyond those normally granted by law or license. The case you reference has little, if anything, to do with the typical weapon system acquisition process.

I work in this area. It would help you if you actually read the FAR that you're citing, since it says the exact opposite of what you claim.

The standard license rights that a licensor grants to the Government are unlimited rights, government purpose rights, or limited rights. Those rights are defined in the clause at 252.227-7013 , Rights in Technical Dataâ"Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services. In unusual situations, the standard rights may not satisfy the Government's needs or the Government may be willing to accept lesser rights in data in return for other consideration. In those cases, a special license may be negotiated. However, the licensor is not obligated to provide the Government greater rights and the contracting officer is not required to accept lesser rights than the rights provided in the standard grant of license. The situations under which a particular grant of license applies are enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.

A license is a right to exploit (make, have made, sell, offer to sell, import, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, publicly display and/or perform, and/or generally use, depending upon the IP and the transaction).

What it is not is an assignment of ownership of the IP. The private entity developing the IP retains ownership of the IP and can exploit it itself for commercial purposes, excepting ITAR issues and other technology restrictions that would apply to similar technologies generally.

The original claim was "the government owns most it (sic) not all of its IP in its supply chain." That's false. It has a license to it, and rarely anything more.

And a douche bag of a president who drops bombs next to schools and kills 135 kids . Should resign on the spot for that.

Look up "human shields", the practice of siting military targets among (or in or under) large collections of non-military civilians, in order to deter strikes against them or produce propaganda claims of atrocities when they're attacked anyhow.

In such situations the fault for the "collateral damage" is assigned to the side that set up the arrangement, not the side that hit it.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the US has been trying very hard to use precision munitions and extreme military intelligence to take out military targets with as little harm to the innocents they're embedded among as possible, with impressive success. Compare the amount of collateral damage in this war to any of those conducted in the 20th century.

He's doing the bare minimum sniff test of verifying that *you* are the guy whose name is on the bookings and not someone sneaking in on someone else's name who can't even pronounce the name on your fake id.

At least in the case of people claiming to be returning citizens I've been told that they're comparing your accent to your claimed residence (or residence history).

Different words are acquired at different ages, and many are pronounced with regional variations. An expert can talk to you for a few minutes and come up with a pretty good age-map of where you lived as you grew up. An agent with a modicum of training can detect a mismatch between how you pronounce certain words and your claimed residence and pass you through quickly or keep you around and drill more deeply. (If you now live in an area with a regional accent wildly different from where you grew up it can help to answer a where-do-you-reside question with "Footown, but I grew up in Barstate".)

I presume they are doing something similar, though no doubt with lower resolution, on the world-wide level for visitors from other countries.

You know the government owns most it not all of its IP in its supply chain, right? It's all work for hire.

You know that you're just making up bullshit and then typing it into a comment, right?

There is no "work for hire" for most IP. Patents are owned by their inventors absent a contract assigning it to others (typically their employer, not the Federal government). Copyrightable works made for hire are limited to "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." Otherwise, the copyright is owned by the author (which might be an employer, but definitely is not the Federal government, which cannot create works protected by copyright) absent a contract assigning it to others.

Show me the government contracts that assign rights to the government. Show me all the Microsoft and Oracle and Amazon and Google software that has had ownership assigned to the government. Deny that cases like Bitmanagement Software GMBH v. United States appear routinely on the Court of Federal Claims' docket, and explain away 28 USC 1498.

You're not just a little bit wrong, you're basically entirely wrong. Federal procurement contracts do not routinely include assignments of IP to the government. Nobody making dual use technology would bother doing business with the government if it did. The government doesn't fund the development of things that it uses, it buys it after the fact, even in the defense space.