Doubtful either will do anything but maybe make a report that might be ready if they are murdered. Cops will say there is nothing they can do because nobody is hurt. I’d bet a field agent would never call you back or show up.

The ‘Tells it like it is and doesn’t care what anyone thinks’ candidate.

I guess they can chalk this up to having a concept of an opinion at the moment in addition to having a concept of a plan.

I know that. That still misses the point. The point of the law is to clarify that on digital storefronts that you make purchases for licensed digital goods, that you can’t imply to the consumer that they actually own those goods. It doesn’t matter if there is an offline installer. It doesn’t matter if you can ‘keep your installers forever’.

It doesn’t really matter because it doesn’t change the point that people think they own digital goods when they don’t. GOG may have a more consumer friendly system in place but it doesn’t change what has happened with people’s music, movies, shows, games and music in games at these digital storefronts, where people have clicked “Buy X” and later on, it’s no longer in their libraries anymore. This has happened even when the business still exists and is still providing digital goods.

Right, if you download the offline installers, then they can’t stop you from doing whatever you’re going to do with it but you don’t own them. Legally, you can’t sell them, transfer them to someone else, etc.

There are other sections that make the lack of ownership by you clear and that you still have to abide by the publisher’s/developer’s licensing agreements but Section 10 states the situation outright:

Section 10 of the GOG user agreement says:

GOG content is owned by its developers/publishers and licensed by us.

It should because their use agreement makes it clear that you don’t own the games but are licensing them. That’s pretty much why they had to clarify what they said I’d imagine. IMO, proving the point of the law, really.

So, for ventilators, I’d definitely prefer a DIY repair attempt and rolling the dice instead of having a ventilator that doesn’t work, especially when you absolutely need them but don’t have them.

They didn’t lose their case in front of SCOTUS. SCOTUS just decided not to hear the case so the lower court’s ruling stood in that lower jurisdiction.

You might as well criticize someone that uses a mirror in spite of blind people existing.

The Elder Scrolls 6: Skyrim 2

It isn’t going to be one or the other (if they don’t offer a 401k, then you can use IRAs), unless you just make a bad choice. An employer can contribute to a 401k and also provide a pension (mine used to but I’ve been around long enough that I get both the pension and 401k with matching) but if I had a choice, I could pick a pension for example but also put money into an IRA for retirement that would normally go to a 401k.

If you absolutely had to pick one, it isn’t going to be the same answer for everyone. Amounts, what you’re able to contribute, matching, risks and tax situations are going to vary from person to person and their employer.

As far as controlling your money, some 401k’s allow some extra control, some don’t but most have a middle ground except for their company stock which you can usually directly buy. If you’re 401k allows general different ‘markets’ and/or ‘lifecycle’ buckets (they get more conservative on investment risk the closer you get to your retirement age) is, at the end of the day, all controlled by a broker and they are making the actual decision as to what to invest and how. Some plans may allow you to invest into individual stocks through the 401k’s brokerage though.

At the end of the day though, if all you had was a pension offered which you aren’t going to be contributing your income to, then you should invest in some sort of retirement plan yourself, be it an IRA, money market, bonds, CDs or whatever.

I don’t want to keep replying to this but in response to your ‘this is from a .mil site specifically …’ I linked to the DOD’s actual gov website.

This article is relevant for NAVPERS 18068F because the Navy has all of this annoying traditions, like referring to ‘-’ as Tack like they are pretending to be a flagman from 1835 on a ship and refer to a snackbar as a gedunk and blah blah blah.

But they still have a military rank. Sure, if you ask someone enlisted person what their ‘rate’ is they are going to respond with “PO1” if they are a Petty Officer First Class but if you have a CAC ID, under RANK it is going to say PO1 with the USN’s seal in the top-right. Because it is their military rank. The USN can call it a rate as well and traditionally it can be known as a rate in the USN but it is still a military rank. It will even say that on your ID card if you have one or have had one. As I recall, this is also true for the old green ID cards.

OK, let me just break this down for you. Rates are a job in the Navy. For example, in that wikipedia article, a Fireman recruit is a rate – their job. Their rank would be a Seaman Recruit. Their paygrade would be an E-1.

In your example, a Constructionman would be an E-3. Constructionman would be their rate. Their rank would be Seaman.

You can see this better at https://www.defense.gov/Resources/Insignia/

They don’t list rates, because there’s many, many, many different jobs in the different branches. The Navy is odd in that they usually refer to each other by rates, not ranks. In every other branch, people usually refer to each other by rank and not their MOS/AFSC/Whatever. It would be weird in the USAF for example to refer to some Airman First Class as 2A33C or whatever.

You can see this further explained at https://www.military.com/navy/enlisted-rates.html where they list the rates and talk about them but then they list the ranks and talk about them. They are tied together by paygrade.

And once again, in the US Navy, an enlisted person can literally not have a rate and be called Unrated until they are assigned a rate. Usually this happens to very junior enlisted.

They have pay grades, rank and rates in the Navy, though there are actually also unrated enlisted that get all assigned all the crappiest jobs until they get assigned a rate.

A CMDCM, so an E9. No Congressional approval is needed to bust down an E8 though.

In the navytimes article, they said some of the Cheif’s Mess installed a bunch of wired ‘repeaters’ all over the ship (probably wireless access points and not repeaters though).

Effectively they did through obfuscation. The Command Chief renamed it to look like their wireless printers. She did that because so many more junior people (relative to the Chief’s Mess) complained that the officers tried to check (with their phones) for some wifi Internet. They couldn’t find it because they thought it was a printer. The Command Chief is obviously trusted since she’s the most senior enlisted but she’s also the one that lead the entire scheme. When asked directly by the Commander, she denied it existed, so after not finding it, they just assumed it was a rumor. So, they had a ship-wide call and told everyone that there was no rogue Internet access point on the ship.

It took months because when a tech from a port they were at was installing a Starshield transceiver they physically saw the Starlink transceiver.

I think the issue is that you look like you are talking about health insurance in the US. There is basically a zero percent change the person you are responding to is talking about insurance from any plan in the US.

Step 1: License the technology for very cheap or free to competitors.

Step 2: Include features but its free because ads. Pay small monthly fee for ad-free.

Step 3: Revise CANNBus or replace it with new system. Make it a ‘standard’ so that aftermarket units can provide features but will also serve ads from the original car manufacturer and its DRM. Anyone reverse engineering the system gets sued into the ground for DMCA/Copyright laws because now they are bypassing DRM.

Step 4: Everyone gets ads regardless. Also, you must pay subscription fee to basically use the car. Ads are to “keep costs down” for features and/or car purchasing price.

Step 5: After everyone is mad, give slightly higher cost for subscription for ad-free.

People that complain are told 'It’s just one coffee a month. No big deal."

Step 6: Offer a 5-year (non-transferrable or refundable) plan that you can just roll into the price of the car loan and ‘locks in the price’ and 'You don’t have to worry about it anymore." Maybe toss in lame very small discounts for certain branded charging stations while on the plan. People already sign up for credit cards, give away their personal info. and become loyal customers to gas stations to save single digit percentages off on fuel.

People that buy new every 5 years usually buy the package.

People that try to save money and buy used cars pay the subscriptions.

Step 7: Double monthly price for ad-free tier and market it to “we had to raise prices for those that want a premium experience but kept the ad-based subscription fee cheap. We had to pass the cost somewhere.” This will increase the demand for those 5-year plans.

Overall new car purchase demand increases a bit because of those plans.

Over the course of 15 or 20 years there will be an entire generation of drivers used to ads always being in cars and will just accept subscriptions and ads are just the way it’s always been that way and that it must be that way.

For the EU, it’ll probably be different where the car can perform basic functions without ads but ‘premium features’ for stuff like traction control, auto lane following, etc. will probably still be behind the system I’d imagine.

They can spend as much time as they want with the patient. The insurance simply caps how much is billable.