Honestly? The reason is science
It's all well and good for you to go "RAAAAR COMMON SENSE" but it's incredibly difficult to prove anything like this in real people who live different lives in different places doing different things, because even if all of the above were the same it would take 20+ years. Completely ignoring the money.
In that time the one major political power has access to the media to the exclusion of all others while showing puff pieces with videos of Putin riding combine harvesters, tranquilising siberian tigers, diving to pull artifacts from wrecks all while pulling his shirt off at every moment.
When the one major political party uses government resources to print pamphlets and travel to visit city centres while all the challengers have to fund their own campaign.
Even if the votes were counted fairly, that's quite a handicap to give your opponents!
The conversation mode is in alpha and it's intermittently very good or very bad (a complete hoot)!
I'm bilingual and visited my mother with a, "mum come have a go at this" - 15 minutes later we gave up with tears of laughter at some of the translations.
Then of course, we tried pieces of the "voice recognition lift" skit which has again come into relevance with the release of siri
I think that such a rigid system would prove to be a double-edged sword and would ultimately not be adopted in some institutions. It requires precise tracking of what each trader "bets" vs their losses and the application of rules to stop them from losing too much. This is data that can find its way into the outside world in the case of scandals such as this and I'm not sure investment banks would want a perfectly documented account of losses becoming public. They play a game of high-stakes risk on a daily basis, under the respectable cover of expensive premises and thick financial service books.
A friend of mine who is in what most of us would call an extremely well-paying profession told me about a highschool friend of hers who worked as a trader in London and retired at the ripe old age of 42 to live in an amazing appartment with waterfront views in central London. I was grumbling about banker-types making phenomenal money and being nowhere near as intelligent as doctors/lawyers/engineers, to which she replied, "Of course they're not the brightest, they're certainly not dumb, but they're wired different to you or I - they're risk-takers. What they do with large sums of money on a daily basis, is gambling in a casino where 'the house always wins' isn't always the case. Normal people put in their position would not take the risks they take for fear of losing"
You can potentially win big, lose or stay the same - but some of these institutions trade retirement funds or government health funds. Governments tend to have inquiries if things go wrong and not having an exacty record of how a system broke down allows the bank face while they use the trader as the scapegoat for everything that went wrong.
However if the holder dies so should the copyright. 70 years seems a good frame.
That will be the issue in the future around 2031 - now it's the "ageing rockers" that we remember, but soon it'll be their poor, poor children and their estate who will be losing their income
There is quite a large difference between a person watching and seeing you go past and a sleepless, tireless automaton tracking you to the distance of a car parking spot.
I think you'll find there's a very large court case if your country that's actually trying to decide how much of a right to privacy even suspected criminals have with GPS tracking versus good ol' actual police officers following you: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html
What would be interesting to see what westfield's reaction would be if you had a mechanism (from LCD film to... duct tape) for covering up your license plate each time you enter it. While I don't know the specifics of the law as it pertains to carparks in Australia - I'm sure regardless of what the law is, the rent-a-cops would bar your entry stating "private property".
...but anything to help it win is welcome.
The patent disputes are an utter can of worms with the who-copied-who arguments, however the claims of copying design elements are utterly stupid to the point of being insulting. If someone walks into a shop intending to buy an iPad, but walks out with a ** 7.7 inch ** samsung galaxy tablet, there are 2 things that need to happen:
1) Help needs to be organised - they will probably need help switching the device on, yet alone using it.
2) Serious questions need to be asked about how such a dimwit managed to get that much money.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.