How is this a user error? When I try to text someone who used to have an iPhone I have to manually tell it to send it as a text message. In one place its a friend, who is a single mom, whose phone broke and couldn't afford to get another iPhone. She's tried everything in Apple's support forums and my phone still tries to iMessage her. you know, if they just had some sort of timeout for registration this would never happen. But I suppose that it would be too difficult for apple to require you to connect to Apple's servers every x days. No, that would be much too difficult. Let's just blame it on the users who want a new phone.
Apparently Apple knows less about their own products than I do as an Apple developer. You can't trust a random support employee to know how iMessage works, it's a complicated system.
It's very simple. If you send an SMS to a number registered as being an iPhone, it will be encrypted for that phone and sent over the internet. If the phone does not decrypt the message and send an acknowledgment within a few minutes, it will be sent as an SMS instead. Repeated delivery failures (2 or 3?) will automatically disable iMessage.
According to the article, the iMessage is sent and status immediately changes to "delivered". That means he has at least one device registered to receive iMessages at that phone number and it is turned on and received the message. His claim to have logged out of iMessage on all his devices is bullshit. He forgot one.
You sir, have obviously never encountered the problem. The message does one of two things: 1) Gets marked as delivered but is never delivered because the person has no iDevice or 2) Gets marked as undeliverable and is not resent as a text. I have a friend who has been trying to fix this for months and at first her messages disappeared into the abyss. Now they just fail to deliver and I have to manually resend it. She's changed her account password, which is supposed to reset iMessage, and it still doesn't work. Same thing with my sister and a few other people I know. It's a huge pain. Logging into iMessage on an iOS or Mac device and then removing the phone number seems to be the only reliable fix.
If they wanted this to be fixed reliably, they should require that you log in to iMessage on an interval and then automatically revert to text if your token times out. As it is, you stay an iMessage user to all iPhone users until you disable iMessage.
My experience is that if an iPhone is unable to send an iMessage (shows as blue), it automatically falls back to text message after 5 minutes (shows as green). After a few of these in a row, it defaults to text message until the iMessage connection can be re-established with the other endpoint.
(Of course, this option can be turned off if you prefer to use only iMessages, at which point it's not going to be allowed it to fall back.)
This is not the case when the person abandons the iPhone. It will just mark the message as "failed to send" or mark the message as delivered without ever trying to send a text. You have to manually long-tap the message and select "send as text" or they will never get the message. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I have a handful of contacts that cannot get iMessage deactivated, even when following the steps listed by Apple or Samsung. The only solution that seems to work 100% of the time is to use iMessage to disable the account. That requires that you have access to an iOS or Mac device.
Doesn't work reliably. My sister has gone through the process twice and it still tries to iMessage her. I have a couple other friends experiencing the same issue. The only thing I have seen reliably work is to sign into iMessage on another device (mac included) and disable. Changing the iTunes password and other such tricks seem to be a crap shoot.
I left California years ago. A previous employer paid to move me to my current location. They even paid me my California wages at the time. The cost of living here is a fraction of what it was for me in California. I have a 20 minute commute and live right on the beach. My raises haven't kept up with a Bay Area position, but I would have to get over a 50% raise to maintain the same standard of living that I have here. I've switched jobs a few times without much difficulty. It's very difficult finding a talented developer here, so anyone with skill gets snatched up quickly. Oh and I rarely work more than 40 hours a week. It's been wonderful.
On one hand, glad the little fucker got caught. on the other, also glad he was Canadian. Had he been in the US, he'd probably get a life sentence.
16 year old kids do really incredibly dumb anti social stuff, problems arise with something as easy to pull off as this -- and the supposed anonymity of the internet. How many of you remember winnuke (circa 1996)? Nowadays nuking someone would have been met with a knock on the door, and being hauled away in cuffs.
(NOT defending swatting. more criticizing penalties for teenagers in the US. At 16 you're a moron -- you have some inkling of the consequences but you don't really *get* it.)
You have to be a pretty messed up 16 year old kid to not realize that it's pretty damn stupid and risky to have the SWAT team break into someone's house. The guy is smart enough to figure out how to do this stuff, then he is smart enough to realize that there are potential consequences to his actions. Personally I think he should be treated quite harshly. You're comparing Winnuke, where someone's computer rebooted, to this kid? No comparison. You can do an equivalent to the winnuke with the XBox360 (cause a reboot of their device). I know someone who does it to people who cheat in games (or are just annoying). I haven't heard of anyone getting hauled off for that. No, this kid is on his way to becoming a sociopath. Would you rather we throw him in jail or make him a CEO? Seems like the only two career paths open to this kid.
Then they are in violation of their agreement. They did steal your time but there is a specific crime for that type of contract violation. It's not considered theft because you have to prove you had an agreement in order for them to be held responsible for your time. Once you show the agreement is valid, you already have them for a contract violation, which will cover your damages.
Why is it is so difficult for smart asses like yourself? When you are unsure of a word's meaning, consult your dictionary.
American
noun
1 a native or citizen of the United States.
That's the primary definition. As a secondary definition, it can also be used to describe someone born in any country in North, Central, or South America.
And which dictionary are you consulting? And even if that is the case, why is it correct to put people from the US above citizens in other countries of the Americas. It's very egocentric.
When you're talking to someone in Spanish and you want to say you're from America, you are saying quite literally that you are from the United States. That may not be true in all languages, but the Spaniards lead the European colonization efforts of the new world and they obviously felt it was an important distinction to make. Perhaps everyone knows what you mean, but that doesn't mean you don't sound like an arrogant ass when you say it.
because you deserved it...just because you can form paragraphs with proper sentence structure doesn't mean your arguments aren't any less shit
this is about people's lives in war
it's obviously an abstract concept to you, like playing Starcraft or inventing a fictional narrative...
killing people is really, really bad...no ammount of actuarial science or spreadsheet analysis can justify an innocent death...it harms the person who pulls the trigger as well...IMHO we should probably all be 100% pacifists but that's not how I act in real life...and really it's not realistic but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise
if you take these ideas beyond abstractions your ideas really do look silly
They are not silly at all. Part of the rules of engagement revolve around the cost (in equipment, manpower, and financial resources) of executing an engagement. There are even political and collateral calculations in the rules of engagement. And again you call into question my understanding of war, even after I provided you with my experience regarding war. And what have you provided to back up your points? What personal experience do you claim to have? None. Look man. I've seen what war does to people first hand. I've spent years of my life around people with PTSD. I worked with a retired PJ (USAF pararescue jumper) who was so emotionally fucked up from what he saw that he had a service dog to help calm him. And you're trying to tell me that I have no idea what harm war has on either side of the fence? I don't even know why I am wasting my time responding to you.
And I would be willing to bet that the total count of 100% pacifists in the entire world is practically 0.
Now that's just plainly overly generalized; "theft of services" is an entirely real thing and may not involve anything tangible; the most obvious business example is refusing to pay a consultant. In the case of private MMO servers, this isn't happening: the client, protocol, and server content are already paid for, after all, so what is done is definitely infringement, but there are definitely still kinds of intangible theft.
Theft of service is something tangible. What are you stealing? My electric service? You're stealing my tangible electricity (try not to kill yourself if you touch it). If you steal my internet services then you are stealing the physical capacity I have to transport bits across the internet. If you copy my data, I may not be happy with you, but I still have a copy of it. I'm not saying that it should be legal to do so, I am just saying that it's not really stolen. Some other law has been broken (for instance copyright violation or unauthorized computer access).
I want it. Maybe I am not a current gun owner, but have small kids. Maybe I live in a safe area so the likelihood of needing a gun is low, but I might still want one in case. Maybe I don't want my kids to accidentally use it. So I can see a need for it.
You could get a trigger and slide lock if you're just trying to keep kids from using it. The cable lock prevents you from loading any ammunition and the trigger lock prevents you from being able to pull the trigger even if you cut the cable lock. That's pretty foolproof. Not great for self-defense, but great to prevent unauthorized use in general. Of course if someone steals the gun and has the time and tools, they can defeat both locks.
you're an idiot...it's obvious you barely read my post and that you have no concept of what 'war' actually means
Straight to the ad hominem I see. Glad to see you didn't waste any time with a real argument. There are many definitions of war, and I know what it means. I've spent many years working with the US Army in its attack helicopter program. I have seen the actual war footage, worked with the pilots and ground personnel, I've heard their stories and experiences. Now what is your resume for knowing what war actually means?
There hasn't been a formal declaration of war in many (any??) of these countries
i already addressed this from my original post: 3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
Did you read my argument? I said that we need to be more careful when we take action in instances where there is no formal declaration of war. I intentionally left argument 3 out because I agree that there does not need to be a formal declaration of war to engage in military action. The fact that you are physically and legally capable of doing something does not automatically make it acceptable. It does not relinquish the requirement that you act judiciously.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The person in an airplane is there live.....
None of those things you mentioned are salient factors in the decision to use lethal force...they are ancillary and do not in any way put forward a coherent theory of actual rules for engagement...just a list of characteristics that make it a good weapon...
Again I disagree with you. They are important factors. You are less likely to even consider lethal force against a target if its going to cost you $10M to execute that force. But if it only costs you a single $1.00 bullet, you're much more likely to engage the target. There are opportunity costs in all things. The higher the cost of the operation, the fewer the operations that can be executed. Therefore you must pick and choose your operations carefully. This is exactly why the cost is an important factor. My point is that it is far too easy to just have a drone launch a Hellfire missile at a car on the ground in hopesthat it contains someone important. To sortie a manned aircraft would cost a fortune compared to the drone and put undue stress on the crew. So you would not make that same attack unless you had a much higher degree of certainty.
Does the cost change the rules of engagement? No, not directly. But it does alter when an engagement is actually considered the correct course of action. The fact of the matter is that most of these strikes would not occur if we had to use conventionally piloted aircraft. Whether it affects the rule book directly or not, you cannot argue that there is a de facto change to the balancing equation of rules with the use of these drones.
Does nation of Brasil have the word "America" in its official name?
How about Canada? Mexico? Guatemala? Let's go down the list and see.
Except that the America in the name of the USA refers to its location. Everyone in North and South America is an American. Because, as per your logic, they live on a continent with America in its official name. When I travel abroad and people ask me where I am from, I tell them I am from the United States. I do not tell them that I am an American because that narrows it down to 35 countries.
Don't worry. I've been playing Minesweeper almost every waking moment since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty. By my calculations, the earth should be mine free in another decade or two.
2. In war, we kill on all kinds of imperfect data...**it's all we ever have**
There hasn't been a formal declaration of war in many (any??) of these countries (Pakistan, Yemen, etc). Of course the data is going to be imperfect, but you have to have much stronger evidence to engage in this kind of activity in a country where you are not at war.
4. Both drones & piloted craft shoot missiles at enemies that cause collateral deaths, and any criticism of the use of either is a criticism of the use of both
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The person in an airplane is there live. They see everything that is going on in the situation (the canopies on the aircraft give you more of a view of the area than having to PTZ a camera), and their lives are personally at risk if they make a poor choice. Furthermore the on station time of an F-18 is on the order of 1-2 hours (depending on how far away you launched from, it can be a matter of minutes). A drone can often loiter above its target for 6+ hours waiting for the chance to strike. The cost of operating a drone is far lower than the cost of a piloted craft. That means that the government can have more of these things circling waiting for a chance to strike. Lower barrier to entry means that they are far more likely to opt to make a strike rather than wait for a more certain opportunity.
I'm sick of the banter & want real discussion on this issue
I'm not sure I believe you. It sounds like you've already made your mind up on points 2-4 and they are very important to this discussion.
Sounds like you've heard too many horror stories and haven't spent a lot of time there.
Spent a year living in South America and did a lot of walking / bus / taxi trips. I personally only had someone try to rob me once, but I am a bigger guy. There were people in my group that were robbed on more than one occasion with one gentleman being robbed twice in the same night. They took all his clothes when they found out he had no more money. And you know that Caracas, one of the largest cities in South America, is also the murder capital of the world? I passed through there briefly, so I have no personal experience there, but I made friends with people from Caracas. They would tell you exactly how dangerous it was.
There are plenty of relatively safe Latin American countries (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, maybe Peru?), but I would be very wary traveling through Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, many parts of Brazil, Paraguay, and a few parts of Ecuador.
Black cabs can lower their standards by accepting charters via Uber. If black cabs want to maintain their standard of service, that's their business.
I don't think you quite get it. So let me explain it to you for the third time: The local government told Black Cab that they had to maintain a specific standard of service. They did not choose it, it was mandated. Now the same government agency has decided to allow competition that does not have to maintain the same standard of service. What you are telling them is that they are free to close down their business and start a brand new one that is not regulated the same way as their old business. I have a hard time believing that the government would allow them to do that. But even still, why should they have to do this? Again this is a matter of regulation not being applied equally. It has nothing to do with Uber offering a better or different service. It's the exact same service. You can download Black Cab's app and request pick up and do everything that Uber's app lets you do. So don't tell me that its Black Cab choosing to run a more expensive business model.
No dice, jack. You can install Uber on your phone just the same.
The issue has nothing to do with whether or not anyone can install Uber on their phone. IT's whether or not Uber is an unlicensed livery service (which it most certainly is). The cost of becoming a black cab driver is artificially imposed on the driver by the government. So why is it all the sudden fair to allow Uber to come in and undercut them by not forcing the same artificial barrier to entry? That's why they are pissed and I really don't blame them. Either they all follow the same regulations or you remove the regulations. Those are the only logical options. Of course Uber is really cheap when they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Maybe some people don't want the best in the business. Maybe they just want a cheap ride.
The tube system in London is great also. That's pretty cheap. If they are going to let Uber run a taxi service then they should all play by the same rules. Either lower the standards for the black cabs, or raise them for Uber. The restriction on the drivers is caused by government regulation.
I do not live in London, and I do not drive professionally. But the GP is correct. They have to know volumes of local history, have every possible route through London memorized, and are very strenuously tested. The cabbies in London are the best in the business. They are interesting to talk to. I've seen a few doubledecker tour bus drivers that are a little bit better at teaching you about the local culture and community, but its hard to beat the black cabs. I would choose that over an automated car any day of the week as a tourist.
Also, in reality, you want the taxi services to be regulated. I've been to coutries where they are not, and the taxis there range from "you will get cheated" to "you will get raped, killed, and robbed". And that's a fact. No way a foreigner can use the local taxis. You free the business completely, competition will drive the prices low (which is a good thing), but the low prices will force the drivers to cheat, steal, and rob, as the only ones making a profit will be the ones who do. And no, i'm not a taxi driver. I hate having to pay the local super high taxi fares, but on the other hand, the service is first class. They are on time when preordered, the cars are nice and clean and safe. The drivers won't rob you, beat you, cheat you, or anything. They actually know their area, they also have navigators in every car, as well as the taxi centrals help. They are not allowed to refuse a drive because they don't feel like going to a direction where they won't find anyone to come back the other way.
I Second that. I can tell you right now that in Latin America you had better negotiate that cab fare before you even get into the vehicle. IF you don't, they will demand a fortune and call the cops when you don't deliver. And that's assuming they are honest enough to honor their original agreed upon price. If not, they may just take you somewhere nice and lonely.
My country paid for my education as well as 1k / month in educational support. So I had no debt leaving school.
I had some money on my account, the rest was just standing credit, of which I have 10k at 5% per year (if I wanted more I could probably just call my bank).
From what I hear US banks doesn't have concept of standing credit... it's like a credit card, except you don't have to pay it at the end of the month and interest are very reasonable.
US banks are quite shitty, I have high income, ~30k in the bank right now, but I have trouble getting a credit card, or a even a reliable debit card. I've had transactions cancelled on me because I travelled to another state, or tried to buy a 1.5k bike... I even had petty transactions cancelled on my at wallgreens, for no good reason.. So I always carry around one of my foreign credit card, they always work. It's just ridiculous that American banks can't handle day-to-day operations reliably.
Sounds to me like you're running into fraud protection hits. I use my credit card for everything. I just dropped like $5k in work expenses on a card last week. I did not even have a hiccup. I just went to the bank and pulled out $2000 in cash, again without any hiccup whatsoever. I have put over $10,000 on my credit card in one transaction before without so much as a phone call from the bank.
Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?
Why should he? Not like he was driving, nor is the car his property. In the case you describe, the driver is at fault, not the passenger.
Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YOU are liable for the injuries?
That depends. I know someone who sued a passenger in a car for negligence. In this case, the passenger was stone cold sober and let his friend drive him around after having a few too many drinks (blood alcohol more than 3x the legal limit). The driver ran a red light and almost killed my acquaintance. The driver was uninsured and had no assets. The passenger, on the other hand, was insured and had plenty of real world assets. The passenger was at the bar with the driver when they got drunk. The passenger knew the driver was drunk and still let them drive them both around. I can understand someone wanting to hold the passenger accountable for his inaction. In fact, the passenger was held liable. So perhaps the Uber passenger could be liable for the actions of an uninsured driver.
Interesting to note that India has one of the largest populations and the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. It's not like India is violence free, though. We hear all the time about brutal gang rapes of women. And those are only the ones that get reported internationally because they are committed against foreign tourists. So this would suggest that a low rate of gun violence does not imply a safer society, and that there is a cultural influence to violence as a whole.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.
Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false!
USA! USA! USA!
Well it is difficult to measure the violent crime statistics in jurisdiction A versus jurisdiction B when they may have completely different definitions of what is considered a violent crime. I do not know enough about Japan to comment on that matter, but it does make it easier to cherry pick stats when the laws are not the same.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this a user error? When I try to text someone who used to have an iPhone I have to manually tell it to send it as a text message. In one place its a friend, who is a single mom, whose phone broke and couldn't afford to get another iPhone. She's tried everything in Apple's support forums and my phone still tries to iMessage her. you know, if they just had some sort of timeout for registration this would never happen. But I suppose that it would be too difficult for apple to require you to connect to Apple's servers every x days. No, that would be much too difficult. Let's just blame it on the users who want a new phone.
Apparently Apple knows less about their own products than I do as an Apple developer. You can't trust a random support employee to know how iMessage works, it's a complicated system.
It's very simple. If you send an SMS to a number registered as being an iPhone, it will be encrypted for that phone and sent over the internet. If the phone does not decrypt the message and send an acknowledgment within a few minutes, it will be sent as an SMS instead. Repeated delivery failures (2 or 3?) will automatically disable iMessage.
According to the article, the iMessage is sent and status immediately changes to "delivered". That means he has at least one device registered to receive iMessages at that phone number and it is turned on and received the message. His claim to have logged out of iMessage on all his devices is bullshit. He forgot one.
You sir, have obviously never encountered the problem. The message does one of two things: 1) Gets marked as delivered but is never delivered because the person has no iDevice or 2) Gets marked as undeliverable and is not resent as a text. I have a friend who has been trying to fix this for months and at first her messages disappeared into the abyss. Now they just fail to deliver and I have to manually resend it. She's changed her account password, which is supposed to reset iMessage, and it still doesn't work. Same thing with my sister and a few other people I know. It's a huge pain. Logging into iMessage on an iOS or Mac device and then removing the phone number seems to be the only reliable fix.
If they wanted this to be fixed reliably, they should require that you log in to iMessage on an interval and then automatically revert to text if your token times out. As it is, you stay an iMessage user to all iPhone users until you disable iMessage.
My experience is that if an iPhone is unable to send an iMessage (shows as blue), it automatically falls back to text message after 5 minutes (shows as green). After a few of these in a row, it defaults to text message until the iMessage connection can be re-established with the other endpoint. (Of course, this option can be turned off if you prefer to use only iMessages, at which point it's not going to be allowed it to fall back.)
This is not the case when the person abandons the iPhone. It will just mark the message as "failed to send" or mark the message as delivered without ever trying to send a text. You have to manually long-tap the message and select "send as text" or they will never get the message. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I have a handful of contacts that cannot get iMessage deactivated, even when following the steps listed by Apple or Samsung. The only solution that seems to work 100% of the time is to use iMessage to disable the account. That requires that you have access to an iOS or Mac device.
Go to the website and do it there?
Samsung has a nice right up on how to resolve the problem using any number of methods:
http://www.samsung.com/us/supp...
Have you people not heard of Google?
Doesn't work reliably. My sister has gone through the process twice and it still tries to iMessage her. I have a couple other friends experiencing the same issue. The only thing I have seen reliably work is to sign into iMessage on another device (mac included) and disable. Changing the iTunes password and other such tricks seem to be a crap shoot.
I left California years ago. A previous employer paid to move me to my current location. They even paid me my California wages at the time. The cost of living here is a fraction of what it was for me in California. I have a 20 minute commute and live right on the beach. My raises haven't kept up with a Bay Area position, but I would have to get over a 50% raise to maintain the same standard of living that I have here. I've switched jobs a few times without much difficulty. It's very difficult finding a talented developer here, so anyone with skill gets snatched up quickly. Oh and I rarely work more than 40 hours a week. It's been wonderful.
On one hand, glad the little fucker got caught. on the other, also glad he was Canadian. Had he been in the US, he'd probably get a life sentence.
16 year old kids do really incredibly dumb anti social stuff, problems arise with something as easy to pull off as this -- and the supposed anonymity of the internet. How many of you remember winnuke (circa 1996)? Nowadays nuking someone would have been met with a knock on the door, and being hauled away in cuffs.
(NOT defending swatting. more criticizing penalties for teenagers in the US. At 16 you're a moron -- you have some inkling of the consequences but you don't really *get* it.)
You have to be a pretty messed up 16 year old kid to not realize that it's pretty damn stupid and risky to have the SWAT team break into someone's house. The guy is smart enough to figure out how to do this stuff, then he is smart enough to realize that there are potential consequences to his actions. Personally I think he should be treated quite harshly. You're comparing Winnuke, where someone's computer rebooted, to this kid? No comparison. You can do an equivalent to the winnuke with the XBox360 (cause a reboot of their device). I know someone who does it to people who cheat in games (or are just annoying). I haven't heard of anyone getting hauled off for that. No, this kid is on his way to becoming a sociopath. Would you rather we throw him in jail or make him a CEO? Seems like the only two career paths open to this kid.
Then they are in violation of their agreement. They did steal your time but there is a specific crime for that type of contract violation. It's not considered theft because you have to prove you had an agreement in order for them to be held responsible for your time. Once you show the agreement is valid, you already have them for a contract violation, which will cover your damages.
Why is it is so difficult for smart asses like yourself? When you are unsure of a word's meaning, consult your dictionary.
American noun 1 a native or citizen of the United States.
That's the primary definition. As a secondary definition, it can also be used to describe someone born in any country in North, Central, or South America.
And which dictionary are you consulting? And even if that is the case, why is it correct to put people from the US above citizens in other countries of the Americas. It's very egocentric.
When you're talking to someone in Spanish and you want to say you're from America, you are saying quite literally that you are from the United States. That may not be true in all languages, but the Spaniards lead the European colonization efforts of the new world and they obviously felt it was an important distinction to make. Perhaps everyone knows what you mean, but that doesn't mean you don't sound like an arrogant ass when you say it.
because you deserved it...just because you can form paragraphs with proper sentence structure doesn't mean your arguments aren't any less shit
this is about people's lives in war
it's obviously an abstract concept to you, like playing Starcraft or inventing a fictional narrative...
killing people is really, really bad...no ammount of actuarial science or spreadsheet analysis can justify an innocent death...it harms the person who pulls the trigger as well...IMHO we should probably all be 100% pacifists but that's not how I act in real life...and really it's not realistic but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise
if you take these ideas beyond abstractions your ideas really do look silly
They are not silly at all. Part of the rules of engagement revolve around the cost (in equipment, manpower, and financial resources) of executing an engagement. There are even political and collateral calculations in the rules of engagement. And again you call into question my understanding of war, even after I provided you with my experience regarding war. And what have you provided to back up your points? What personal experience do you claim to have? None. Look man. I've seen what war does to people first hand. I've spent years of my life around people with PTSD. I worked with a retired PJ (USAF pararescue jumper) who was so emotionally fucked up from what he saw that he had a service dog to help calm him. And you're trying to tell me that I have no idea what harm war has on either side of the fence? I don't even know why I am wasting my time responding to you.
And I would be willing to bet that the total count of 100% pacifists in the entire world is practically 0.
Now that's just plainly overly generalized; "theft of services" is an entirely real thing and may not involve anything tangible; the most obvious business example is refusing to pay a consultant. In the case of private MMO servers, this isn't happening: the client, protocol, and server content are already paid for, after all, so what is done is definitely infringement, but there are definitely still kinds of intangible theft.
Theft of service is something tangible. What are you stealing? My electric service? You're stealing my tangible electricity (try not to kill yourself if you touch it). If you steal my internet services then you are stealing the physical capacity I have to transport bits across the internet. If you copy my data, I may not be happy with you, but I still have a copy of it. I'm not saying that it should be legal to do so, I am just saying that it's not really stolen. Some other law has been broken (for instance copyright violation or unauthorized computer access).
I want it. Maybe I am not a current gun owner, but have small kids. Maybe I live in a safe area so the likelihood of needing a gun is low, but I might still want one in case. Maybe I don't want my kids to accidentally use it. So I can see a need for it.
You could get a trigger and slide lock if you're just trying to keep kids from using it. The cable lock prevents you from loading any ammunition and the trigger lock prevents you from being able to pull the trigger even if you cut the cable lock. That's pretty foolproof. Not great for self-defense, but great to prevent unauthorized use in general. Of course if someone steals the gun and has the time and tools, they can defeat both locks.
you're an idiot...it's obvious you barely read my post and that you have no concept of what 'war' actually means
Straight to the ad hominem I see. Glad to see you didn't waste any time with a real argument. There are many definitions of war, and I know what it means. I've spent many years working with the US Army in its attack helicopter program. I have seen the actual war footage, worked with the pilots and ground personnel, I've heard their stories and experiences. Now what is your resume for knowing what war actually means?
i already addressed this from my original post: 3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
Did you read my argument? I said that we need to be more careful when we take action in instances where there is no formal declaration of war. I intentionally left argument 3 out because I agree that there does not need to be a formal declaration of war to engage in military action. The fact that you are physically and legally capable of doing something does not automatically make it acceptable. It does not relinquish the requirement that you act judiciously.
None of those things you mentioned are salient factors in the decision to use lethal force...they are ancillary and do not in any way put forward a coherent theory of actual rules for engagement...just a list of characteristics that make it a good weapon...
Again I disagree with you. They are important factors. You are less likely to even consider lethal force against a target if its going to cost you $10M to execute that force. But if it only costs you a single $1.00 bullet, you're much more likely to engage the target. There are opportunity costs in all things. The higher the cost of the operation, the fewer the operations that can be executed. Therefore you must pick and choose your operations carefully. This is exactly why the cost is an important factor. My point is that it is far too easy to just have a drone launch a Hellfire missile at a car on the ground in hopesthat it contains someone important. To sortie a manned aircraft would cost a fortune compared to the drone and put undue stress on the crew. So you would not make that same attack unless you had a much higher degree of certainty.
Does the cost change the rules of engagement? No, not directly. But it does alter when an engagement is actually considered the correct course of action. The fact of the matter is that most of these strikes would not occur if we had to use conventionally piloted aircraft. Whether it affects the rule book directly or not, you cannot argue that there is a de facto change to the balancing equation of rules with the use of these drones.
Does nation of Brasil have the word "America" in its official name?
How about Canada? Mexico? Guatemala? Let's go down the list and see.
Except that the America in the name of the USA refers to its location. Everyone in North and South America is an American. Because, as per your logic, they live on a continent with America in its official name. When I travel abroad and people ask me where I am from, I tell them I am from the United States. I do not tell them that I am an American because that narrows it down to 35 countries.
I expect this will be as successful as the UN's 1990-era anti-mine treaty (the Ottawa Treaty - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...), with over a hundred signatories, but not Russia, China or the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Don't worry. I've been playing Minesweeper almost every waking moment since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty. By my calculations, the earth should be mine free in another decade or two.
2. In war, we kill on all kinds of imperfect data...**it's all we ever have**
There hasn't been a formal declaration of war in many (any??) of these countries (Pakistan, Yemen, etc). Of course the data is going to be imperfect, but you have to have much stronger evidence to engage in this kind of activity in a country where you are not at war.
4. Both drones & piloted craft shoot missiles at enemies that cause collateral deaths, and any criticism of the use of either is a criticism of the use of both
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The person in an airplane is there live. They see everything that is going on in the situation (the canopies on the aircraft give you more of a view of the area than having to PTZ a camera), and their lives are personally at risk if they make a poor choice. Furthermore the on station time of an F-18 is on the order of 1-2 hours (depending on how far away you launched from, it can be a matter of minutes). A drone can often loiter above its target for 6+ hours waiting for the chance to strike. The cost of operating a drone is far lower than the cost of a piloted craft. That means that the government can have more of these things circling waiting for a chance to strike. Lower barrier to entry means that they are far more likely to opt to make a strike rather than wait for a more certain opportunity.
I'm sick of the banter & want real discussion on this issue
I'm not sure I believe you. It sounds like you've already made your mind up on points 2-4 and they are very important to this discussion.
Sounds like you've heard too many horror stories and haven't spent a lot of time there.
Spent a year living in South America and did a lot of walking / bus / taxi trips. I personally only had someone try to rob me once, but I am a bigger guy. There were people in my group that were robbed on more than one occasion with one gentleman being robbed twice in the same night. They took all his clothes when they found out he had no more money. And you know that Caracas, one of the largest cities in South America, is also the murder capital of the world? I passed through there briefly, so I have no personal experience there, but I made friends with people from Caracas. They would tell you exactly how dangerous it was.
There are plenty of relatively safe Latin American countries (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, maybe Peru?), but I would be very wary traveling through Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, many parts of Brazil, Paraguay, and a few parts of Ecuador.
Black cabs can lower their standards by accepting charters via Uber. If black cabs want to maintain their standard of service, that's their business.
I don't think you quite get it. So let me explain it to you for the third time: The local government told Black Cab that they had to maintain a specific standard of service. They did not choose it, it was mandated. Now the same government agency has decided to allow competition that does not have to maintain the same standard of service. What you are telling them is that they are free to close down their business and start a brand new one that is not regulated the same way as their old business. I have a hard time believing that the government would allow them to do that. But even still, why should they have to do this? Again this is a matter of regulation not being applied equally. It has nothing to do with Uber offering a better or different service. It's the exact same service. You can download Black Cab's app and request pick up and do everything that Uber's app lets you do. So don't tell me that its Black Cab choosing to run a more expensive business model.
No dice, jack. You can install Uber on your phone just the same.
The issue has nothing to do with whether or not anyone can install Uber on their phone. IT's whether or not Uber is an unlicensed livery service (which it most certainly is). The cost of becoming a black cab driver is artificially imposed on the driver by the government. So why is it all the sudden fair to allow Uber to come in and undercut them by not forcing the same artificial barrier to entry? That's why they are pissed and I really don't blame them. Either they all follow the same regulations or you remove the regulations. Those are the only logical options. Of course Uber is really cheap when they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Maybe some people don't want the best in the business. Maybe they just want a cheap ride.
The tube system in London is great also. That's pretty cheap. If they are going to let Uber run a taxi service then they should all play by the same rules. Either lower the standards for the black cabs, or raise them for Uber. The restriction on the drivers is caused by government regulation.
I do not live in London, and I do not drive professionally. But the GP is correct. They have to know volumes of local history, have every possible route through London memorized, and are very strenuously tested. The cabbies in London are the best in the business. They are interesting to talk to. I've seen a few doubledecker tour bus drivers that are a little bit better at teaching you about the local culture and community, but its hard to beat the black cabs. I would choose that over an automated car any day of the week as a tourist.
Also, in reality, you want the taxi services to be regulated. I've been to coutries where they are not, and the taxis there range from "you will get cheated" to "you will get raped, killed, and robbed". And that's a fact. No way a foreigner can use the local taxis. You free the business completely, competition will drive the prices low (which is a good thing), but the low prices will force the drivers to cheat, steal, and rob, as the only ones making a profit will be the ones who do. And no, i'm not a taxi driver. I hate having to pay the local super high taxi fares, but on the other hand, the service is first class. They are on time when preordered, the cars are nice and clean and safe. The drivers won't rob you, beat you, cheat you, or anything. They actually know their area, they also have navigators in every car, as well as the taxi centrals help. They are not allowed to refuse a drive because they don't feel like going to a direction where they won't find anyone to come back the other way.
I Second that. I can tell you right now that in Latin America you had better negotiate that cab fare before you even get into the vehicle. IF you don't, they will demand a fortune and call the cops when you don't deliver. And that's assuming they are honest enough to honor their original agreed upon price. If not, they may just take you somewhere nice and lonely.
Where did you get $6k??
My country paid for my education as well as 1k / month in educational support. So I had no debt leaving school. I had some money on my account, the rest was just standing credit, of which I have 10k at 5% per year (if I wanted more I could probably just call my bank). From what I hear US banks doesn't have concept of standing credit... it's like a credit card, except you don't have to pay it at the end of the month and interest are very reasonable. US banks are quite shitty, I have high income, ~30k in the bank right now, but I have trouble getting a credit card, or a even a reliable debit card. I've had transactions cancelled on me because I travelled to another state, or tried to buy a 1.5k bike... I even had petty transactions cancelled on my at wallgreens, for no good reason.. So I always carry around one of my foreign credit card, they always work. It's just ridiculous that American banks can't handle day-to-day operations reliably.
Sounds to me like you're running into fraud protection hits. I use my credit card for everything. I just dropped like $5k in work expenses on a card last week. I did not even have a hiccup. I just went to the bank and pulled out $2000 in cash, again without any hiccup whatsoever. I have put over $10,000 on my credit card in one transaction before without so much as a phone call from the bank.
Why should he? Not like he was driving, nor is the car his property. In the case you describe, the driver is at fault, not the passenger.
Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YOU are liable for the injuries?
That depends. I know someone who sued a passenger in a car for negligence. In this case, the passenger was stone cold sober and let his friend drive him around after having a few too many drinks (blood alcohol more than 3x the legal limit). The driver ran a red light and almost killed my acquaintance. The driver was uninsured and had no assets. The passenger, on the other hand, was insured and had plenty of real world assets. The passenger was at the bar with the driver when they got drunk. The passenger knew the driver was drunk and still let them drive them both around. I can understand someone wanting to hold the passenger accountable for his inaction. In fact, the passenger was held liable. So perhaps the Uber passenger could be liable for the actions of an uninsured driver.
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Interesting to note that India has one of the largest populations and the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. It's not like India is violence free, though. We hear all the time about brutal gang rapes of women. And those are only the ones that get reported internationally because they are committed against foreign tourists. So this would suggest that a low rate of gun violence does not imply a safer society, and that there is a cultural influence to violence as a whole.
>
I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.
Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false! USA! USA! USA!
Well it is difficult to measure the violent crime statistics in jurisdiction A versus jurisdiction B when they may have completely different definitions of what is considered a violent crime. I do not know enough about Japan to comment on that matter, but it does make it easier to cherry pick stats when the laws are not the same.