That's why the sensible option is to have armed escort vessels, and keep the merchant ships unarmed. As armed vessels are not allowed through the Suez canal any more, having arms on board is a major hindrance, and that's not including the various jurisdictions that take issue with armed vessels docking at their ports, as you mentioned. The escort ships can wait in international waters, or sail in national waters if allowed, but not have to dock. The vessel they're escorting can provide the supplies the escort vessel needs (food, water, fuel, etc.), and everyone wins.
Putting arms on a merchant vessel only serves to make pirates more willing to shoot at said vessels. Without guns, merchant vessels will be less likely to suffer casualties when the pirates board. Most shipping companies either don't mind paying ransom, or will hire private security firms to protect their vessels from separate escort ships. That frees the merchant vessel from having to take arms into port, which many jurisdictions might have problems with, hindering their ability to make money. Surely you understand that.
Your belligerent tone is hardly helping your case. I've got family out on armed private escort ships off Somalia, and they've been doing it for well over 2 years now.
They already hire private military companies to guard their ships. I have 3 family members serving on such vessels at this very moment, and they've been doing it for years. Oh, and it's "ex-" not "x". It seems your knowledge of current events are worse than your writing skills.
The morality issue is if it's worth killing someone to protect material goods. Lots of people across the world don't think it's OK to kill a possible thief to stop them from stealing your stuff. When pirates "attack" they don't kill anyone, they merely take hostages and/or cargo. Loads of folks would not agree that that crime warrants the death penalty, through due process or otherwise.
Because it ups the ante significantly. It makes every merchant vessel, armed or otherwise, potentially armed, and that means pirates will be more likely to use violence in capturing ships. The best way is to have separate, armed vessels escorting merchant shipping. That means there is a clear distinction between armed and unarmed vessels - ships can be protected while not automatically making all merchant vessels seem probably armed.
Oh, and it's perfectly legal for an armed ship to approach another ship while not having radio contact, so your idea would lead to a lot of innocent people dying for no reason at all.
It's very hard to kill innocent bystanders with a glass ashtray, or to have thoughts about killing folks when handling one. Handguns are there to kill people, ashtrays are not.
The sentence for carrying such a weapon is massive - 10 years. The guns are confiscated, and are not produced in the country. Imports are all carefully screened and any weapons that are found are confiscated and destroyed. Anyone found selling these weapons are jailed for very long times. That means the number of these guns in circulation is constantly decreasing, and the likelihood of them being carried by someone wanting to commit a crime is very very low indeed, as they will spend a decade in prison if found with one. So yeah, the number is practically zero. There is just no need for them.
The transcoder could read the videos off the NAS and then stream them. I don't see what the problem is. Unless all the codecs in your media is supported by your choice of renderer, you're going to need to transcode somewhere along the way. Heck, I set up PMS so my parents' networked Sony Blu-Ray player could play videos off the network, and it was ridiculously easy. I don't know why it's so scary. It took a few minutes.
No, those are the original spellings of the words as first adopted into English. The spellings you advocate were created solely in the US, many by Webster.
Like non-experts in some given field given the equal time and say as an expert? Jenny McCarthy talking about vaccines is a great example. Heck, anything based on any scientific study is pretty easy to determine the veracity of.
No, as people taking a leak during TV commercials are not recorded by the TV network. People using AdBlock are indeed noticed by the sites in question, and that has a direct effect on revenue.
Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car
on
Today's WikiLeaks News
·
· Score: 1
Locals working for a US company which receives 95% of its $2bn-a-year profit from US taxpayers, held a party that included selling off boys for sex, with the full knowledge of the US government, which failed to do anything about it.
I think you mean "cynic" as opposed to "skeptic". All scientists, and the scientific method itself, are intrinsically skeptical. Cynicism, however, is a different beast altogether.
No, Assange was arrested by appointment by the Metropolitan Police, due to a warrant being issued by Interpol at the behest of Sweden. Interpol doesn't arrest anyone.
The vast majority of the cameras in the UK are not interconnected, and are privately-owned to watch private premises. How is that any more of a surveillance society than people just walking around in public looking at stuff? A real surveillance society would involve government cameras in peoples' houses.
Looking for people flying single with a one-way ticket will only work so far. After the first guy is caught, the terrorists will just send couples with return tickets. Using intelligence, and not strange forms of profiling that only work temporarily, is the only way to work it. Heck, the only intelligent way to end this shit is to figure out why there are terrorists (hint: countries being a dick and not listening to actual grievances) and stop doing it. Ask the British. They figured it out with the IRA, and there was no fucking way to profile those guys - pasty white guys, travelling with single or return tickets, via bus/train/ferry/plane/bike/pony/trained-eagle are pretty common on those isles - and so it was down to actual police-work and the intelligence agencies to figure out who were the assholes and who were not.
Racial profiling is not commonly used because it's ineffective, not just because it's (by definition) racist. Do you think terrorists all look the same? Do you think that even if they do now that they always will? If you just search for swarthy individuals, you won't be checking non-swarthies, and if the terrorists start to use them, hey-presto you've just given them a first-class ticket past security. That's why racial profiling doesn't work. It's naive and intrinsically prone to catastrophic failure. Grandma Mabel gets scanned because terrorists might assume racial profiling is in operation, and so are using old ladies who are, or can pass for, white.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why the sensible option is to have armed escort vessels, and keep the merchant ships unarmed. As armed vessels are not allowed through the Suez canal any more, having arms on board is a major hindrance, and that's not including the various jurisdictions that take issue with armed vessels docking at their ports, as you mentioned. The escort ships can wait in international waters, or sail in national waters if allowed, but not have to dock. The vessel they're escorting can provide the supplies the escort vessel needs (food, water, fuel, etc.), and everyone wins.
Putting arms on a merchant vessel only serves to make pirates more willing to shoot at said vessels. Without guns, merchant vessels will be less likely to suffer casualties when the pirates board. Most shipping companies either don't mind paying ransom, or will hire private security firms to protect their vessels from separate escort ships. That frees the merchant vessel from having to take arms into port, which many jurisdictions might have problems with, hindering their ability to make money. Surely you understand that.
Your belligerent tone is hardly helping your case. I've got family out on armed private escort ships off Somalia, and they've been doing it for well over 2 years now.
They already hire private military companies to guard their ships. I have 3 family members serving on such vessels at this very moment, and they've been doing it for years. Oh, and it's "ex-" not "x". It seems your knowledge of current events are worse than your writing skills.
rm -rf ./tards-like-pgmrdlm
The morality issue is if it's worth killing someone to protect material goods. Lots of people across the world don't think it's OK to kill a possible thief to stop them from stealing your stuff. When pirates "attack" they don't kill anyone, they merely take hostages and/or cargo. Loads of folks would not agree that that crime warrants the death penalty, through due process or otherwise.
Because it ups the ante significantly. It makes every merchant vessel, armed or otherwise, potentially armed, and that means pirates will be more likely to use violence in capturing ships. The best way is to have separate, armed vessels escorting merchant shipping. That means there is a clear distinction between armed and unarmed vessels - ships can be protected while not automatically making all merchant vessels seem probably armed.
Oh, and it's perfectly legal for an armed ship to approach another ship while not having radio contact, so your idea would lead to a lot of innocent people dying for no reason at all.
No, we're comparing iOS and Android. Who makes the handsets is purely academic.
It's very hard to kill innocent bystanders with a glass ashtray, or to have thoughts about killing folks when handling one. Handguns are there to kill people, ashtrays are not.
The sentence for carrying such a weapon is massive - 10 years. The guns are confiscated, and are not produced in the country. Imports are all carefully screened and any weapons that are found are confiscated and destroyed. Anyone found selling these weapons are jailed for very long times. That means the number of these guns in circulation is constantly decreasing, and the likelihood of them being carried by someone wanting to commit a crime is very very low indeed, as they will spend a decade in prison if found with one. So yeah, the number is practically zero. There is just no need for them.
The transcoder could read the videos off the NAS and then stream them. I don't see what the problem is. Unless all the codecs in your media is supported by your choice of renderer, you're going to need to transcode somewhere along the way. Heck, I set up PMS so my parents' networked Sony Blu-Ray player could play videos off the network, and it was ridiculously easy. I don't know why it's so scary. It took a few minutes.
I don't have a clod, you insensitive basement!
No, those are the original spellings of the words as first adopted into English. The spellings you advocate were created solely in the US, many by Webster.
Without something decent to instantly take over and maintain our lives, yes, it would be a very bad thing indeed.
Then you'll love this short video from Irish comedian Dara O'Briain :)
It works fine for me - I installed it, and seconds later the page worked absolutely perfectly.
Like non-experts in some given field given the equal time and say as an expert? Jenny McCarthy talking about vaccines is a great example. Heck, anything based on any scientific study is pretty easy to determine the veracity of.
No, as people taking a leak during TV commercials are not recorded by the TV network. People using AdBlock are indeed noticed by the sites in question, and that has a direct effect on revenue.
Switzerland is not part of the EU, by the way.
Locals working for a US company which receives 95% of its $2bn-a-year profit from US taxpayers, held a party that included selling off boys for sex, with the full knowledge of the US government, which failed to do anything about it.
I think you mean "cynic" as opposed to "skeptic". All scientists, and the scientific method itself, are intrinsically skeptical. Cynicism, however, is a different beast altogether.
No, Assange was arrested by appointment by the Metropolitan Police, due to a warrant being issued by Interpol at the behest of Sweden. Interpol doesn't arrest anyone.
The vast majority of the cameras in the UK are not interconnected, and are privately-owned to watch private premises. How is that any more of a surveillance society than people just walking around in public looking at stuff? A real surveillance society would involve government cameras in peoples' houses.
And if you don't reroute the encryption, you will be destined to fail.
So what is it called, then, when armed people kill the shit out of a bunch of innocent folks? Something awesome, I'm sure.
Looking for people flying single with a one-way ticket will only work so far. After the first guy is caught, the terrorists will just send couples with return tickets. Using intelligence, and not strange forms of profiling that only work temporarily, is the only way to work it. Heck, the only intelligent way to end this shit is to figure out why there are terrorists (hint: countries being a dick and not listening to actual grievances) and stop doing it. Ask the British. They figured it out with the IRA, and there was no fucking way to profile those guys - pasty white guys, travelling with single or return tickets, via bus/train/ferry/plane/bike/pony/trained-eagle are pretty common on those isles - and so it was down to actual police-work and the intelligence agencies to figure out who were the assholes and who were not.
Racial profiling is not commonly used because it's ineffective, not just because it's (by definition) racist. Do you think terrorists all look the same? Do you think that even if they do now that they always will? If you just search for swarthy individuals, you won't be checking non-swarthies, and if the terrorists start to use them, hey-presto you've just given them a first-class ticket past security. That's why racial profiling doesn't work. It's naive and intrinsically prone to catastrophic failure. Grandma Mabel gets scanned because terrorists might assume racial profiling is in operation, and so are using old ladies who are, or can pass for, white.