I really dont think your founding fathers had pictured a time when American society was so dysfunctional that you have a situation where gun ownership is akin to worship, people collecting guns as if they were beanie babies, gangs turning inner cities into essentially war zones, and that each and every year there are the more than twice the number of homicides from gun violence than the US lost during the entire American Revolution.
History doesn't even tally with that I'm afraid:( The vast majority of times when there has been a popular uprising, the resulting government has been far from democratic, often resulting in fragmentation, oppression and violence.
Even the governments installed into Iraq and Afghanistan by external forces are not truly democratic because certain political view points are not allowed, certain parties are banned from standing, and often elections do not include disaffected groups.
That Independent article is also talking about a completely different government, with completely different policies. Its also taken from someones memoirs, someone who wasnt exactly above telling porkies...
that is very successful at apprehending illegal fishing boats
Close to home, I bet.
If you call the Indian Ocean "home", then sure.
pirates and other criminals.
By yourselves or as part of a coalition?
By ourselves and as part of coalitions, depending on the area. The Royal Navy is not afraid of operating on its own.
we have some ships with big guns that can stop you.
As if the UK is going to finance a navy large enough to permanently patrol that area with enough warships to successfully defend the area.
We already permanently patrol several areas, including the Falkland Islands and territories in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
Permanently.
As if Britain has the collective testicles to sink a fishing boat. Now you're just being stupid.
Not really, since it has happened in the past - we engage boats all over the world for many reasons. Why wouldn't we sink a fishing boat? Australia intercepts, boards and scuttles illegal fishing vessels many times a year, so why wouldn't we?
then take them to court and strip to of all assets.
What jurisdiction does England have over a Japanese fishing vessel?
We have a blue water navy (yes, we still do) that is very successful at apprehending illegal fishing boats, pirates and other criminals.
So the jurisdiction we have is that you are fishing in our waters illegally, and we have some ships with big guns that can stop you. Permanently. Or take you into custody, return you to a British port and put you infront of a magistrate.
VISA: "ok, so you are saying fraud has been committed? Passing this over to the police so they can investigate."
Charge backs do not have zero repercussions - if he claimed fraudulent activity, his son could have a visit from the police.
Of course your post ignores the fact that Apple requires a password before in-app purchase, and after the last debacle with kids running up purchases, changed the default behaviour so the 15 minute grace period after installing an app (and thus having entered the account password to do so) no longer applies.
In this case, the kid *was* authenticating the purchases - he had his dads password and was using it to make the purchases...
Apple did everything right except for babysit accumulated purchases, which is what the dad is demanding they do.
Ever since Apple was forced to drop the "apps must be originally written in ObjC" from the app store terms, you can write in whatever language you want.
This guy sounds *exactly* like Monty Widenius of MySQL/MariaDB fame when he got pissed off after selling MySQL to Sun - he even went as far as asking the Sun-Oracle merger court to grant him MySQL rights back so he could regain copyright control, and when that failed he started up MariaDB as a GPL fork.
Quit yer bitchin', you sold it, its no longer yours to control - Disney could have made it a fucking musical for all Lucas could have done about it.
That would be a breach of the order, since it is a notification of change. Don't think that the government can be confused and bamboozled by stupid kids games like this and others in these comments - if it constitutes a notification, its a notification. It doesn't have to come in the form of "I, Yahoo!, hereby notify you that we have had a warrant issued against us for your data", it simply has to be a notification.
If a company has a warrant canary in its annual statements, or on your account etc, then the law would make sure it would be unusable for the purposes of notification. Either the company leaves it in permanently and its useless, or the company removes it with a statement to the effect of "The removal of this means nothing, as the warrant canary is now meaningless with regard to current legislation as we cannot use a warrant canary for its intended purpose anymore."
Uh, for something to be a warrant canary, it has to be generally known that its a warrant canary - thats the entire point of it, it has to be fecking obvious.
Or do you think a company can come up with something hush hush that only certain members of its secret club would know about, except that all its customers are invited to that club and initiated into the secrets? Yeah, lets see how swearing 5 million people to silence about the "not a warrant canary *wink*" turns out...
Uh, not selling property is not market manipulation - its the very right of ownership. Refusing to sell all your stock at once to keep prices high is not market manipulation and there is nothing illegal in it.
Ahh more insults from you, this is becoming common.
Just because a bank is holding onto property does not mean its empty, and nor does it mean it would be affordable to rent for these people needing to find cheap accommodation. Unoccupied properties degrade quickly, so banks will gladly rent them out. The people in this story are renters, so the fact that banks wont sell is meaningless to this discussion.
Plus I really dont think there are 640million empty properties right now in the US ("multiple empty houses for every man, woman and child" is what you said, combined with the current estimated population of 322million). A quick googling shows a recent estimate is only 18.6million, and most of those need significant extra work as they are uninhabitable.
Add to that the fact that acting as a landlord for an extra 3.5million zero or low income people (the estimated number of homeless in the US) puts a huge strain on somebody - were you thinking of forcing the banks to bear this cost? Another thing to consider is that the banks *are* donating empty houses to cities for social housing, but most cities dont want them because it eliminates property taxes on those properties and adds them as a burden to the city.
You also realise that the banks are paying for the bailout, right? To date, the US Federal Reserve has actually made a profit of $63.2Billion on loans totalling $618Billion disbursed under the TARPS and Fannie and Freddie.
Of that $618Billion, the Federal Reserve has seen $681Billion flow back, and thats with about $230Billion in loans yet to be repaid. Puts your "elaborate theft from the taxpayer" comment in a new light, now doesnt it...
Here in the UK, this "disarmed nation", the phrase "home invasion" is pretty much never heard (unless its related to US news or TV shows) - burglaries are almost always non-violent events that happen when the home owner is away from the property, or its a smash and grab for the car keys.
The major structural frames for both the F-22 and the F-35 are aluminium - titanium is used in particular places for its strength, but its too expensive to be used for standard airframe structural frames, as its too difficult to machine and work with. The major structural frames for the F-22 and F-35 are made on 50 year old presses owned by Alcoa - something that couldn't be done if the material used was titanium.
No aviation grade aluminium is recycled into more aircraft because its cheaper to start from scratch for certification purposes, but that doesnt mean that aviation grade aluminium doesn't have properties which make it sought after on the second hand market.
Your F-22 with nukes is still very valuable as it stands, even if you don't want someone to have it as a usable single component - the flyaway cost of an F-22 was $150million in 2009, plus an average cost of $350,000 in 2014 for a nuclear weapon.
The engines are worth about $20million each, giving you $40million or so of recoverable value, then you need to consider the cost of the high grade aluminium in the airframe itself, giving you another few million. Avionics, radar etc are also saleable, especially to other aircraft operators (even of a different type, other countries routinely upgrade older airframes with brand new avionics and radar systems).
The nuke itself has a lot of specialist explosives in which would fetch a sum of money, and then you have the value of the uranium or plutonium itself.
As for the Death Star itself, lets remember that we saw very little of the Death Stars capabilities - in the first film, we saw it used to destroy an entire planet sure, but that was mainly a show of force to Leia than actual threat. Getting Leia to talk was worth more to the Empire than the planet of Alderaan (sp?) - especially as the Empire almost certainly no longer trusted that planet, considering one of its ruling members was captured aboard a Rebel ship...
In the third film we see the new Death Star being used to target individual capitol ships in the attacking Rebel fleet.
So why assume that a Death Star is limited to reducing entire planets to rubble and nothing else? It could easily be used as a planetary bombardment system - stand off in orbit and reduce individual cities to craters until the planet surrenders for instance. Or hell, the fact that it carries several thousand TIE fighters should be enough to wrap an entire star system in a siege.
Sunk cost implies the guns have no ongoing value, whereas they become an asset you can use or sell later on - so yes, you can turn them into butter at a later date.
What you cannot do is use butter and then turn it into guns.
The phone company still has to positively deal with illegal or nuisance behaviour on its lines, even if they are a common carrier - wouldnt help in this instance.
How did the first amendment prevent the ban on exporting strong encryption back in the 1990s (when those of us outside the US using Netscape and IE had to make do with 40bit https encryption)? Why would it be any more effective today?
Slashdot Mirror
I really dont think your founding fathers had pictured a time when American society was so dysfunctional that you have a situation where gun ownership is akin to worship, people collecting guns as if they were beanie babies, gangs turning inner cities into essentially war zones, and that each and every year there are the more than twice the number of homicides from gun violence than the US lost during the entire American Revolution.
History doesn't even tally with that I'm afraid :( The vast majority of times when there has been a popular uprising, the resulting government has been far from democratic, often resulting in fragmentation, oppression and violence.
Even the governments installed into Iraq and Afghanistan by external forces are not truly democratic because certain political view points are not allowed, certain parties are banned from standing, and often elections do not include disaffected groups.
Whoever caught Hall, obviously.
That Independent article is also talking about a completely different government, with completely different policies. Its also taken from someones memoirs, someone who wasnt exactly above telling porkies...
You realise the Australians do exactly that - intercept modern factory fishing boats - just as much as "rickety old things".
And no, they don't want to hand Gibraltar back to Spain, quite the opposite in-fact...
yes, we still do
Barely. And not for long.
More ships on the way.
that is very successful at apprehending illegal fishing boats
Close to home, I bet.
If you call the Indian Ocean "home", then sure.
pirates and other criminals.
By yourselves or as part of a coalition?
By ourselves and as part of coalitions, depending on the area. The Royal Navy is not afraid of operating on its own.
we have some ships with big guns that can stop you.
As if the UK is going to finance a navy large enough to permanently patrol that area with enough warships to successfully defend the area.
We already permanently patrol several areas, including the Falkland Islands and territories in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
Permanently.
As if Britain has the collective testicles to sink a fishing boat. Now you're just being stupid.
Not really, since it has happened in the past - we engage boats all over the world for many reasons. Why wouldn't we sink a fishing boat? Australia intercepts, boards and scuttles illegal fishing vessels many times a year, so why wouldn't we?
then take them to court and strip to of all assets.
What jurisdiction does England have over a Japanese fishing vessel?
We have a blue water navy (yes, we still do) that is very successful at apprehending illegal fishing boats, pirates and other criminals.
So the jurisdiction we have is that you are fishing in our waters illegally, and we have some ships with big guns that can stop you. Permanently. Or take you into custody, return you to a British port and put you infront of a magistrate.
VISA: "ok, so you are saying fraud has been committed? Passing this over to the police so they can investigate."
Charge backs do not have zero repercussions - if he claimed fraudulent activity, his son could have a visit from the police.
Of course your post ignores the fact that Apple requires a password before in-app purchase, and after the last debacle with kids running up purchases, changed the default behaviour so the 15 minute grace period after installing an app (and thus having entered the account password to do so) no longer applies.
In this case, the kid *was* authenticating the purchases - he had his dads password and was using it to make the purchases...
Apple did everything right except for babysit accumulated purchases, which is what the dad is demanding they do.
If you accidentally get whitespace stripped out for some reason, a language which doesnt rely on whitespace would still function as expected.
Ever since Apple was forced to drop the "apps must be originally written in ObjC" from the app store terms, you can write in whatever language you want.
This guy sounds *exactly* like Monty Widenius of MySQL/MariaDB fame when he got pissed off after selling MySQL to Sun - he even went as far as asking the Sun-Oracle merger court to grant him MySQL rights back so he could regain copyright control, and when that failed he started up MariaDB as a GPL fork.
Quit yer bitchin', you sold it, its no longer yours to control - Disney could have made it a fucking musical for all Lucas could have done about it.
That would be a breach of the order, since it is a notification of change. Don't think that the government can be confused and bamboozled by stupid kids games like this and others in these comments - if it constitutes a notification, its a notification. It doesn't have to come in the form of "I, Yahoo!, hereby notify you that we have had a warrant issued against us for your data", it simply has to be a notification.
If a company has a warrant canary in its annual statements, or on your account etc, then the law would make sure it would be unusable for the purposes of notification. Either the company leaves it in permanently and its useless, or the company removes it with a statement to the effect of "The removal of this means nothing, as the warrant canary is now meaningless with regard to current legislation as we cannot use a warrant canary for its intended purpose anymore."
Uh, for something to be a warrant canary, it has to be generally known that its a warrant canary - thats the entire point of it, it has to be fecking obvious.
Or do you think a company can come up with something hush hush that only certain members of its secret club would know about, except that all its customers are invited to that club and initiated into the secrets? Yeah, lets see how swearing 5 million people to silence about the "not a warrant canary *wink*" turns out...
Uh, not selling property is not market manipulation - its the very right of ownership. Refusing to sell all your stock at once to keep prices high is not market manipulation and there is nothing illegal in it.
No matter what dear Drinkypoo says.
Ahh more insults from you, this is becoming common.
Just because a bank is holding onto property does not mean its empty, and nor does it mean it would be affordable to rent for these people needing to find cheap accommodation. Unoccupied properties degrade quickly, so banks will gladly rent them out. The people in this story are renters, so the fact that banks wont sell is meaningless to this discussion.
Plus I really dont think there are 640million empty properties right now in the US ("multiple empty houses for every man, woman and child" is what you said, combined with the current estimated population of 322million). A quick googling shows a recent estimate is only 18.6million, and most of those need significant extra work as they are uninhabitable.
Add to that the fact that acting as a landlord for an extra 3.5million zero or low income people (the estimated number of homeless in the US) puts a huge strain on somebody - were you thinking of forcing the banks to bear this cost? Another thing to consider is that the banks *are* donating empty houses to cities for social housing, but most cities dont want them because it eliminates property taxes on those properties and adds them as a burden to the city.
You also realise that the banks are paying for the bailout, right? To date, the US Federal Reserve has actually made a profit of $63.2Billion on loans totalling $618Billion disbursed under the TARPS and Fannie and Freddie.
Of that $618Billion, the Federal Reserve has seen $681Billion flow back, and thats with about $230Billion in loans yet to be repaid. Puts your "elaborate theft from the taxpayer" comment in a new light, now doesnt it...
https://projects.propublica.or...
http://themindunleashed.org/20...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Slashdot is becoming more like AboveTopSecret every day...
And what about third party apps now linking to OpenJDK instead of the Java JDK?
Here in the UK, this "disarmed nation", the phrase "home invasion" is pretty much never heard (unless its related to US news or TV shows) - burglaries are almost always non-violent events that happen when the home owner is away from the property, or its a smash and grab for the car keys.
The major structural frames for both the F-22 and the F-35 are aluminium - titanium is used in particular places for its strength, but its too expensive to be used for standard airframe structural frames, as its too difficult to machine and work with. The major structural frames for the F-22 and F-35 are made on 50 year old presses owned by Alcoa - something that couldn't be done if the material used was titanium.
No aviation grade aluminium is recycled into more aircraft because its cheaper to start from scratch for certification purposes, but that doesnt mean that aviation grade aluminium doesn't have properties which make it sought after on the second hand market.
Your F-22 with nukes is still very valuable as it stands, even if you don't want someone to have it as a usable single component - the flyaway cost of an F-22 was $150million in 2009, plus an average cost of $350,000 in 2014 for a nuclear weapon.
The engines are worth about $20million each, giving you $40million or so of recoverable value, then you need to consider the cost of the high grade aluminium in the airframe itself, giving you another few million. Avionics, radar etc are also saleable, especially to other aircraft operators (even of a different type, other countries routinely upgrade older airframes with brand new avionics and radar systems).
The nuke itself has a lot of specialist explosives in which would fetch a sum of money, and then you have the value of the uranium or plutonium itself.
As for the Death Star itself, lets remember that we saw very little of the Death Stars capabilities - in the first film, we saw it used to destroy an entire planet sure, but that was mainly a show of force to Leia than actual threat. Getting Leia to talk was worth more to the Empire than the planet of Alderaan (sp?) - especially as the Empire almost certainly no longer trusted that planet, considering one of its ruling members was captured aboard a Rebel ship...
In the third film we see the new Death Star being used to target individual capitol ships in the attacking Rebel fleet.
So why assume that a Death Star is limited to reducing entire planets to rubble and nothing else? It could easily be used as a planetary bombardment system - stand off in orbit and reduce individual cities to craters until the planet surrenders for instance. Or hell, the fact that it carries several thousand TIE fighters should be enough to wrap an entire star system in a siege.
Sunk cost implies the guns have no ongoing value, whereas they become an asset you can use or sell later on - so yes, you can turn them into butter at a later date.
What you cannot do is use butter and then turn it into guns.
The phone company still has to positively deal with illegal or nuisance behaviour on its lines, even if they are a common carrier - wouldnt help in this instance.
How about healthcare?
Once we know the reason, we can start setting into place the science to change that reason, controlling gravity. Thats why the why is important.
How did the first amendment prevent the ban on exporting strong encryption back in the 1990s (when those of us outside the US using Netscape and IE had to make do with 40bit https encryption)? Why would it be any more effective today?