If you look into this, you'll find the rumors regarding "talks of surrender" are greatly (and cleverly) exaggerated.
After Hiroshima, the Allies requested a surrender. Japan surrendered. The allies rejected the surrender (unacceptable terms). Nagasaki was nuked. Japan revised their terms of surrender. That one, still with terms, was accepted.
Which of those sentences are false? If none are false and they are in chronological order, the US committed mass murder to negotiate better terms of surrender.
For all those sites, I use 1234 or similar. Who cares if someone takes over my Slashdot account? It wouldn't help them do anything. So all my "post only" accounts (Medium and such) are easy. Forums get another. Anything with financial info (PayPal, Banks) has a unique password, and email is as secure as the banks.
Yeah, the kids locked my wife out of her iPhone. She put on a password, not thinking it through. The kids kept trying to get in past all the warnings and such, and not reading anything they were doing. It was only after it stopped letting them try to log in that they gave up. I didn't put a password on my phone because the version of Android I'm using makes 911 a 1-click when you are on the login screen. After having to say "sorry misdial" a few times (can't just hang up when you realize what happened, or the police come looking for you), I removed the password, so that 911 isn't a single click away.
However, if you study the military history, you'll find the reality is that Nagasaki was a major sea port and industrial center (including the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works), making it unquestionably a military target.
And it made the torpedoes used in Pearl Harbor. If it were hit in 1942, it would have undoubtedly been a military target. But hitting a civilian manufacturing town (even if the civilians were manufacturing implements of war) just days before a surrender, and after talks of surrender had started makes Nagasaki more a terrorist act than Dresden, which was thought quite poorly of at the time (by both enemies and allies).
Hiroshima nuking killed about 20,000 troops. Nagasaki nuking killed less than 200 troops. Two orders of magnitude. The Nagasaki bomb wasn't intended to weaken the military's ability to fight, but was intended to weaken the public's will to fight. One is a military goal, the other terrorism.
You don't need anything in writing. A recorded call would be sufficient for a win. So the question is whether he could get the call recording from when he was lied to, causing the loss. That's more than enough for a win in court.
And due to REA and the USF, and the fact you didn't talk about not having electricity and phone, I will assume you have 3 of the 4 I mentioned, and are a lying little shit only talking about the one you don't have, and pretending that is somehow standard.
Yes, if you moved to Antarctica, you'd have few services. And yes, unincorporated Alaska has no services either. But middle-of-nowhere Alaska, if still an incorporated area, will likely have 4/4 for the services I mentioned. You'd have to deliberately avoid the services to end up somewhere they weren't.
He mentioned discrimination first. I just asked how far his discrimination went. Would you have preferred serving Atheists in the alley? A bill up for vote now in Indiana would allow exactly that (religious discrimination would be explicitly allowed by law).
And you seem to be assuming something about me. "you want to be treated special". Who us "you" and what special treatment did I ask for?
Yeah, like your ISP lays separate fiber for residential backhaul and business backhaul. Nope, it's all "converged" and QoS is (hopefully) used to separate the tiers.
Comcast lied and caused a loss. That's fraud (in civil, but not criminal court). He should sue Comcast for the price of the house. Chances are, they'll build whatever they have to to make the lawsuit go away. If he gets the "recorded for quality purposes"recording, it should be a slam-dunk.
So providers shouldn't provide services to black people, because they make poor customers when you make then eat in the alley?
Or phone and electric were built to serve all, even in a particular customer was served for a loss, so why do you think that Internet is less of a fundamental service than electricity or roads or water or phone?
All this information could also be legally found out by following a person around.
Nope.
Guess you've never heard of computers, searches, and automated agents.
I'm confused. How does a computer help someone follow me around? The cost to follow a person loosely would be $50k minimum, more likely $150k. To follow a person more tightly (follow them if they know and are trying to lose you) is going to cost more than $1M per person followed per year. That's why the police loves it. They can track everyone in the area for one low cost.
Nope. Because it's impossible for a government to follow everyone. Because to have that many watchers would bankrupt the country. It would take $100k per year or more to follow me. So the theory doesn't matter because the reality is "no".
A non-combatant in a country you are at war with is not an enemy, and deliberately killing them is murder. Go take a look at the massacres of Vietnam and how those were treated at the time and as history.
Though, bombing a tank factory and killing a non-combatant janitor is not murder, as you targeted a military target and the death is collateral damage, not a murder. Dresden and the Tokyo bombings killed lots of civilians. Hiroshima was a military target, killing 20,000 Japanese troops. That there were 2 times that in dead civilians doesn't make it murder.
But Nagasaki was a terrorist target. It was smaller, and had only a token military presence. The targets were "civilian" facilities that were making war implements. The factory that made the primary torpedo used in Pearl Harbor was destroyed, as were other factories and metal works. But almost no military were killed. The point was to terrorize the Japanese into surrender. Hiroshima "should have" caused a surrender, which was given with unconscionable conditions. It was a mass killing of the main Japanese force assembled to repel an American invasion from the south. But the Japanese wouldn't give in. So Nagasaki was proof that any place left so far (mostly) untouched would be reduced to a parking lot before an American invasion would lose American lives fighting the Japanese on home soil. It may have been necessary to end the war and killed far fewer Japanese civilians than an invasion, but it was still not a military target.
Solenoid driven systems on GM cars from the '80s wouldn't engage under about 35 mph (could be higher or lower, based on the car, it was a mechanical system, not electronic). Modern purely-electronic systems will usually engage at any speed, though some will have a minimum speed. I haven't checked my 2010+ vehicles for cruise performance. It's a non-issue.
I looked up the ones found unconstitutional, and they were all ruled unconstitutional for being vague. A noise ordinance that used dB levels and specific times should be fine. But "too loud, causes discomfort" or such would be too vague.
Noise ordinances are constitutional. Vague and confusing laws are unconstitutional. The problem is if most of the laws on #1 fit in category #2. It doesn't mean anything about #1, other than lawmakers are dumb.
Contrary to what you say, you can be aggravating and you can even try to deliberately aggravate people without breaking the law! Think of those "god hates fags" morons. That's pretty much as hateful, stupid, and aggravating as you can get, but it's still protected speech.
"fighting words" and "incitement" are illegal acts in many places, and there's a fine line for what are illegal words.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look into this, you'll find the rumors regarding "talks of surrender" are greatly (and cleverly) exaggerated.
After Hiroshima, the Allies requested a surrender. Japan surrendered. The allies rejected the surrender (unacceptable terms). Nagasaki was nuked. Japan revised their terms of surrender. That one, still with terms, was accepted.
Which of those sentences are false? If none are false and they are in chronological order, the US committed mass murder to negotiate better terms of surrender.
For all those sites, I use 1234 or similar. Who cares if someone takes over my Slashdot account? It wouldn't help them do anything. So all my "post only" accounts (Medium and such) are easy. Forums get another. Anything with financial info (PayPal, Banks) has a unique password, and email is as secure as the banks.
Yeah, the kids locked my wife out of her iPhone. She put on a password, not thinking it through. The kids kept trying to get in past all the warnings and such, and not reading anything they were doing. It was only after it stopped letting them try to log in that they gave up. I didn't put a password on my phone because the version of Android I'm using makes 911 a 1-click when you are on the login screen. After having to say "sorry misdial" a few times (can't just hang up when you realize what happened, or the police come looking for you), I removed the password, so that 911 isn't a single click away.
However, if you study the military history, you'll find the reality is that Nagasaki was a major sea port and industrial center (including the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works), making it unquestionably a military target.
And it made the torpedoes used in Pearl Harbor. If it were hit in 1942, it would have undoubtedly been a military target. But hitting a civilian manufacturing town (even if the civilians were manufacturing implements of war) just days before a surrender, and after talks of surrender had started makes Nagasaki more a terrorist act than Dresden, which was thought quite poorly of at the time (by both enemies and allies).
Hiroshima nuking killed about 20,000 troops. Nagasaki nuking killed less than 200 troops. Two orders of magnitude. The Nagasaki bomb wasn't intended to weaken the military's ability to fight, but was intended to weaken the public's will to fight. One is a military goal, the other terrorism.
You don't need anything in writing. A recorded call would be sufficient for a win. So the question is whether he could get the call recording from when he was lied to, causing the loss. That's more than enough for a win in court.
And due to REA and the USF, and the fact you didn't talk about not having electricity and phone, I will assume you have 3 of the 4 I mentioned, and are a lying little shit only talking about the one you don't have, and pretending that is somehow standard.
Yes, if you moved to Antarctica, you'd have few services. And yes, unincorporated Alaska has no services either. But middle-of-nowhere Alaska, if still an incorporated area, will likely have 4/4 for the services I mentioned. You'd have to deliberately avoid the services to end up somewhere they weren't.
He mentioned discrimination first. I just asked how far his discrimination went. Would you have preferred serving Atheists in the alley? A bill up for vote now in Indiana would allow exactly that (religious discrimination would be explicitly allowed by law).
And you seem to be assuming something about me. "you want to be treated special". Who us "you" and what special treatment did I ask for?
The next time, place the order before you buy. If they agree to it, sue them if they fail to honor their contract.
Yeah, like your ISP lays separate fiber for residential backhaul and business backhaul. Nope, it's all "converged" and QoS is (hopefully) used to separate the tiers.
Comcast lied and caused a loss. That's fraud (in civil, but not criminal court). He should sue Comcast for the price of the house. Chances are, they'll build whatever they have to to make the lawsuit go away. If he gets the "recorded for quality purposes"recording, it should be a slam-dunk.
So providers shouldn't provide services to black people, because they make poor customers when you make then eat in the alley?
Or phone and electric were built to serve all, even in a particular customer was served for a loss, so why do you think that Internet is less of a fundamental service than electricity or roads or water or phone?
All this information could also be legally found out by following a person around.
Nope.
Guess you've never heard of computers, searches, and automated agents.
I'm confused. How does a computer help someone follow me around? The cost to follow a person loosely would be $50k minimum, more likely $150k. To follow a person more tightly (follow them if they know and are trying to lose you) is going to cost more than $1M per person followed per year. That's why the police loves it. They can track everyone in the area for one low cost.
Nope. Because it's impossible for a government to follow everyone. Because to have that many watchers would bankrupt the country. It would take $100k per year or more to follow me. So the theory doesn't matter because the reality is "no".
A non-combatant in a country you are at war with is not an enemy, and deliberately killing them is murder. Go take a look at the massacres of Vietnam and how those were treated at the time and as history.
Though, bombing a tank factory and killing a non-combatant janitor is not murder, as you targeted a military target and the death is collateral damage, not a murder. Dresden and the Tokyo bombings killed lots of civilians. Hiroshima was a military target, killing 20,000 Japanese troops. That there were 2 times that in dead civilians doesn't make it murder.
But Nagasaki was a terrorist target. It was smaller, and had only a token military presence. The targets were "civilian" facilities that were making war implements. The factory that made the primary torpedo used in Pearl Harbor was destroyed, as were other factories and metal works. But almost no military were killed. The point was to terrorize the Japanese into surrender. Hiroshima "should have" caused a surrender, which was given with unconscionable conditions. It was a mass killing of the main Japanese force assembled to repel an American invasion from the south. But the Japanese wouldn't give in. So Nagasaki was proof that any place left so far (mostly) untouched would be reduced to a parking lot before an American invasion would lose American lives fighting the Japanese on home soil. It may have been necessary to end the war and killed far fewer Japanese civilians than an invasion, but it was still not a military target.
women, children, and other civilians.
Women, Children, and Adult Males. Interesting that not a single military person was killed. At least according to your re-statement.
Solenoid driven systems on GM cars from the '80s wouldn't engage under about 35 mph (could be higher or lower, based on the car, it was a mechanical system, not electronic). Modern purely-electronic systems will usually engage at any speed, though some will have a minimum speed. I haven't checked my 2010+ vehicles for cruise performance. It's a non-issue.
The limit is essentially 85 until corrected. So it doesn't matter what the car does, the effect is legal.
So words that startle should be illegal, and words that offend should be legal. Words that cause harm should be legal, if the harm is emotional.
Is that accurate for your stance?
I proposed no change. I just pointed out that you are mindlessly following society's inconsistent and illogical stance.
What harm does a water balloon that blows up on your roof (without a drop hitting a window or landing under your tires) do?
None, yet you find it illegal. Same as words. Only you find those legal. And you can't explain the difference. Got it.
Yup, that's how it works.
So your response is "nuh uh". You win with your logic.
I looked up the ones found unconstitutional, and they were all ruled unconstitutional for being vague. A noise ordinance that used dB levels and specific times should be fine. But "too loud, causes discomfort" or such would be too vague.
Noise ordinances are constitutional. Vague and confusing laws are unconstitutional. The problem is if most of the laws on #1 fit in category #2. It doesn't mean anything about #1, other than lawmakers are dumb.
Contrary to what you say, you can be aggravating and you can even try to deliberately aggravate people without breaking the law! Think of those "god hates fags" morons. That's pretty much as hateful, stupid, and aggravating as you can get, but it's still protected speech.
"fighting words" and "incitement" are illegal acts in many places, and there's a fine line for what are illegal words.