Grand Theft isn't a petty crime. I'm talking about a B&E where they steal your TV or your bike. I've had multiple cops just shrug their shoulders at me.
They weren't sent to jail for stealing my car.
They were sentenced to jail for their joyride, which was captured on camera. "Reckless endangerment" the judge called it. If all they had done was steal my car, they would have gotten a slap on the wrist in Oz. It was doing 150+ KPH through a 60 zone that clinched it.
But my point was, they never would have been able to find them, let alone arrest and charge them without the footage from my dash cam. As it were, they were arrested on the same day the detectives viewed the footage.
Requirement to be able to include Google Services and Google Play
That's not a requirement, that's an option.
You can buy a lot of Android devices that dont have Google Play and Google Services. Many of these devices are phones and tablets.
The core of Android is built around being open and optional. If you start requiring manufacturers to do something in order to use Android, Android stops being open.
Sucks that Google hasn't made a requirement for a "clean" version of Android to be made available for major devices. That's where probably 75% or more of the issues come in.
I agree,
However such restrictions would be incompatible with the open nature of Android. Sadly, carrier and manufacturer crapware is the downside of having an open ecosystem.
But this is exactly what the Nexus phones are meant to combat. I'd like it if Google were to release vanilla firmware for popular phones like the Samsung Galaxy, Note and HTC One, but this would still require manufacturer co-operation.
My last two phones were Nexuses, my previous phones were bought outright and modded.
I have a dash cam in my car and security cams at home (none are network accessible). I can record an officer who has pulled me over, entered my home or is in public (same rules as recording a private citizen). The only time it gets a little grey is when a private citizen has a reasonable expectation to privacy (I.E. in the bedroom, you cant record you two going at it without consent from both parties).
You ever try to report a petty crime to the police when you've essentially solved the case for them, including the name of the offender with video and photo proof? Yeah.
My car was stolen, taken on a joyride and dumped. Six weeks later I was required to appear in court as a material witness.
And whether I solved the crime was a matter of some debate. The only reason they could ID the thieves was because of a dash cam I'd installed. Cops found the car with the camera still inside it. I reported the theft to the cops who found the car later that day with the dash cam still inside. I was only asked two questions, 1) Did I own the car, 2) Did I install the dash cam. The two miscreants were convicted of theft and a long string of traffic charges. Despite one of them being 17, it was enough to have him tried as an adult (although he got a suspended sentence, his mate was sent to one of Her Majesties finest lodges for a few years).
The car was insured, insurance paid out but if they didn't have the evidence (footage from my dash cam), the thieves would never have been found, let alone punished.
2. Make the police's life easier. Investigating domestic crime is a hassle and takes officers away from revenue generating speed traps
This makes you sound as rational and logical as a 9/11 Truther.
You're also wrong.
Police can investigate these crimes fine. The problem is evidence. Unless you've got some that links them to the act, the thief will simply claim in court that they only received the goods unbeknownst that they were stolen. Without evidence to the contrary the Judge has to accept that explanation (innocent until proven guilty).
I have cameras in my house, in the entrance, kitchen and pointing at the driveway. In Australia, having footage quadruples the chance of a conviction and turning over the footage is voluntary (although if you want to get the guy who robbed you, highly recommended). When my car was stolen, the only reason the thieves were convicted was because of a low quality dash cam I had installed and they identified each other by name.
Secondly, in countries like the UK and Australia, Highway Patrol (and General Duties where there's no dedicated highway patrol) officers are responsible for enforcing road laws. Investigations are handled by CID (Crime Investigation Department, the detectives). A GD officer isn't trained to investigate a robbery, he'll take statements and send that through to CID and CID cant do jack shit if they have no evidence. Also, deaths on the roads are one of the biggest preventable killers in western countries, so you can be damn sure that time spent trying to punish bad drivers is time well spent.
Finally, these are private security cameras, Scotland yard is recommending that people install their own cameras under their control. The same as every shopping mall in the United States have installed, however when you realise that opposing that means you can never go to another Wallmart, Micky D's or Starbucks again, the silence is deafening.
Can we organize in some way to take tourism dollars away from countries like this?
Tourism isn't a big thing in the UAE precisely because of backwards crap like this.
The UAE has a lot of expats and guest workers. The "Guest Workers" are lured from places like India, Bangladesh and the Philippines so mostly they're beneath the notice of the average westerner (I guess we can call this a third world problem) which is a shame as the "Guest Workers" are really mistreated. As for the expats, they should know what they're getting into.
Personally I will refuse to travel to the UAE and try to avoid businesses that originate in the UAE (such as Emirates Airlines) because of the way the UAE operates.
Tricky? No. Simple. Same rules apply as when using the phone.
When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.
This is straightforward, simple concept.
Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post.
That part is NOT tricky.
This is a simple is you assume no state is corrupt.
The problem you've got is you assume that US law applies everywhere. It doesn't.
When you enter another country, you become subject to the laws of those countries even if those laws can be applied retroactively. The US respects this convention (well at least openly pretends to) as they want other countries to respect their laws.
So what you do in California could get you in trouble in Russia if you go to Russia.
The only defence and solution to this is not to travel to countries where you may have violated the law in. 99% of these places are backwards shitholes, so it's relatively easy. Put simply, if you slag off the Emirs, you've got to be an idiot to go to the UAE.
Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?
Go look at the US ESTA application that all Australians have to fill out before travelling to the US.
There's a metric shitload that will get you rejected. Drugs, being associated with a banned group, moral turpitude (we dont even have anything like that on the books in Oz), having previously overstayed a Visa. If you lie on the application to get entry and the US finds out, they will arrest and deport you. At least they've now stopped asking if I'm a Nazi.
The US is one of the harder countries for Australians to gain entry to. Having a possession charge against you 10 odd years ago because you were caught with a joint means that in order to get authorisation to travel to the US you have to attend an interview at a US embassy to ensure you're not a drug user. Possession is a misdemeanour in Australia, you dont even go to court for it.
Those treaties were irrelevant by the time the Two-Ocean Navy Act passed. The Iowa class was free of treaty limits, as was the envisioned Montana class.
As I pointed out, the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) was largely violated by all sides.
But it was the previous naval treaties that lead to the development of the aircraft carrier as aircraft carrier tonnage was not counted in the same pool as battleships. The development of American aircraft carriers went over decades, in fact it was the Washington Naval Treaty in 1920 that caused several large battlecruisers to be converted into aircraft carriers after they were laid down (the Lexington class). The first purpose built carrier the US developed was the Ranger class laid down in 1931.
I believe that during the war, the US cancelled battleships that hadn't been laid down in favour of making more carriers.
I would have sailed with confidence in those "treaty battleships" against anything put to sea by the Axis Powers,
Only the most advanced German ships were capable of matching the ships fielded by the allies and as you pointed out, they weren't that numerous.
However the battleship wasn't really a match for the aircraft carrier, this was made even worse by the fact that only British ships used radar controlled AA guns (I think the USN introduced this later in the war). If the US hadn't sunk 4 of the Japanese carriers at midway, they would have been significantly more of a threat than both the Yamato battleships put together.
It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent
This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.
The increase in construction of Aircraft Carriers was a direct result of naval arms limitation treaties like The Washington Naval Treaty and The London Naval Treaty (not including the Second London Naval Treaty as that was almost universally broken). These treaties introduced limitations on the total displacement of all battleships that could be in various powers navies at any one time including the United States and Empire of Japan. After the Washington Naval Treaty was signed many of the battleships under construction were changed to become aircraft carriers to stay within the treaties limitations.
Aircraft carriers enjoyed a steady rise in numbers and technology as battleships stagnated from the 20's onwards.
Whilst the US, Japan and UK shifted focus to aircraft carriers, the Germans focused on building submarines and big gun heavy cruisers (pocket battleships) which turned out quite disastrously for them.
All they need to do is to pay the scammers with a CC and watch where the money goes. Then go knock some heads.
As they say, follow the money.
If it's that easy... Why are there still criminals?
The sad fact is, it's not that easy. The money is funnelled through shell companies and offshore (most of the time the shell company is offshore to begin with) where it cant be traced by US authorities and then moved around a bit more for good measure (in increasingly legit transactions, but realistically it's just one front paying another until the money becomes clean enough to use).
People need to get over this notion that next year a car will drive itself and you'll sit in the back with a Martini and the paper. That probably wont happen in our lifetimes
It'll happen during the next decade. Bet against Dr. Moore at your own peril.
(granted, the government will lag 20 years behind the technology, so we'll still have drunk drivers killing people when the autopilots would have been safer)
The concentration of transistors has nothing to do with this.
You rely on a bad interpretation of Moore's Law at your own peril.
The technology will be adopted slowly because any mistake will kill the technology. When your laptop crashes due to a production fault, you might lose a little bit of work that you'll have to redo, when a car crashes due to a production fault, there's a good chance people will die. So ordinarily cautious and conservative car companies will be even more cautious and conservative with autonomous cars because they know the first one to make a mistake is a dead company walking.
The problem isn't with hardware processing power, autonomous cars can work with HW which is currently available off the shelf. It's not even with hardware reliability that's a concern. The big question mark is in software reliability. We've got a very long way to go with that.
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot? Well yes because machines aren't infallible.
Not quite. It's "yes" because most people would be unable to get over their fear of flying in an entirely autonomous plane, not because we need heroic pilots to override the computer when things go wrong.
Consider that about half of all aviation accidents are traced to pilot error. The percentage of crashes caused by autopilot error is zero.
No,
Pilots are still there because autopilots can fail.
Story seems to be the setup for an episode of either Mission Impossible (original series), or maybe The A-Team (if you can find them).
Or the ideal excuse for a sick day.
"Uh, yeah, Boss, so I wont be coming into work today because I've been kidnapped and forced to work for a Mexican drug cartel as a sysadmin. Might be in on Tuesday if the hangov... Erm they decide to release me. Peace out."
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot?
Well yes because machines aren't infallible.
For a long time, an autonomous car will not be driverless. People need to get over this notion that next year a car will drive itself and you'll sit in the back with a Martini and the paper. That probably wont happen in our lifetimes.
Initially, fully autonomous modes will only be permitted on certain roads (think limited access roads like highways, freeways and autobahns). This will last years as engineers are even more conservative than law makers. The next step is likely to be special lanes on A roads. It will be a long time before autonomous cars are good enough to operate on a B road or suburban street.
Ultimately, because the law requires someone to be responsible for the operation of the machine it means a qualified operator will need to be at the controls whilst in operation. Same with a lot of other automated systems (such as long distance trains).
I never got that impression. The moon was a self sustaining colony that trades with Earth. I don't recall any notion that the Earth was dependant on them for food.
but it has also been a good 25 or 30 years since I read it, so there is that.
The moon provides earth with food. The earth provided the moon with goods it could not manufacture on Earth (computers, electronics) as well as population (prisoners). The idea was that the moon provides a great deal of food as it costs little to nothing to drop payloads but the Earth provides the moon with very little as it was expensive to lift payloads.
The moon was not a self sufficient colony, it still required some resources from Earth.
Good luck explaining the finer points of a closed-cycle ecology, economics and politics in a 2-hour movie.
I fully expect that Manuel (Man) Davis to be a hard nosed, chisel-jawed, Lunar cop working closely with his partner, Mycroft Holmes (probably a robot) to defeat a crime syndicate.
Hollywood loves Heinlein's titles and backdrops, but hates his characters and stories.
the society he describes is basically a multicultural libertarian utopia
And that's exactly why people end up viewing it as a militaristic or fascist society.
The problem with Heinlein's libertarian utopia is that it's one dimensional, you dont see anyone actually wanting to live outside the rules. It fails for the same reason true communism (marxism) fails, because it relies on everyone believing the same yet still having the same human traits they have now (or had in the 60's).
I understood the society that Heinlein was trying to convey in Starship Troopers and A Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, but I also see they're completely impossible. The notion that they're militaristic or fascist is the most logical jump people make in order to make the society fit in with reality. It's a disconnect that breaks suspension of belief, so in order to restore the suspension of belief people's brain makes the connection to systems of governance that do fit. This is pretty much the only thing that turns me off reading more Heinlein.
Good luck convincing a court that someone owes you money after you refused their cash.
If Canada are anything like other commonwealth countries, then it will go something like this:
Plaintiff: Your honour, the tender offered by the defendant was defaced. Judge: I see, please pay the plaintiff in non defaced currency.
In Australia you can refuse payment by cash, a lot of businesses dont have the facilities to process it (mainly online businesses). Only certain types of businesses are forced to accept cash (most do because cash is such a useful medium and it's the cheapest, fastest way of facilitating small transactions).
Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft isn't a petty crime. I'm talking about a B&E where they steal your TV or your bike. I've had multiple cops just shrug their shoulders at me.
They weren't sent to jail for stealing my car.
They were sentenced to jail for their joyride, which was captured on camera. "Reckless endangerment" the judge called it. If all they had done was steal my car, they would have gotten a slap on the wrist in Oz. It was doing 150+ KPH through a 60 zone that clinched it.
But my point was, they never would have been able to find them, let alone arrest and charge them without the footage from my dash cam. As it were, they were arrested on the same day the detectives viewed the footage.
That's not a requirement, that's an option.
You can buy a lot of Android devices that dont have Google Play and Google Services. Many of these devices are phones and tablets.
The core of Android is built around being open and optional. If you start requiring manufacturers to do something in order to use Android, Android stops being open.
Sucks that Google hasn't made a requirement for a "clean" version of Android to be made available for major devices. That's where probably 75% or more of the issues come in.
I agree,
However such restrictions would be incompatible with the open nature of Android. Sadly, carrier and manufacturer crapware is the downside of having an open ecosystem.
But this is exactly what the Nexus phones are meant to combat. I'd like it if Google were to release vanilla firmware for popular phones like the Samsung Galaxy, Note and HTC One, but this would still require manufacturer co-operation.
My last two phones were Nexuses, my previous phones were bought outright and modded.
Please tell me we're test-firing on the Toyota models used by ISIS.
They tried that.
The Toyota Hilux broke the laser. Its the Chuck Norris of vehicles, that's why the 30 yr old models ISIS are using still work.
I'll put up cameras to watch the police.
Where I live, that's 100% legal.
I have a dash cam in my car and security cams at home (none are network accessible). I can record an officer who has pulled me over, entered my home or is in public (same rules as recording a private citizen). The only time it gets a little grey is when a private citizen has a reasonable expectation to privacy (I.E. in the bedroom, you cant record you two going at it without consent from both parties).
You ever try to report a petty crime to the police when you've essentially solved the case for them, including the name of the offender with video and photo proof? Yeah.
My car was stolen, taken on a joyride and dumped. Six weeks later I was required to appear in court as a material witness.
And whether I solved the crime was a matter of some debate. The only reason they could ID the thieves was because of a dash cam I'd installed. Cops found the car with the camera still inside it. I reported the theft to the cops who found the car later that day with the dash cam still inside. I was only asked two questions, 1) Did I own the car, 2) Did I install the dash cam. The two miscreants were convicted of theft and a long string of traffic charges. Despite one of them being 17, it was enough to have him tried as an adult (although he got a suspended sentence, his mate was sent to one of Her Majesties finest lodges for a few years).
The car was insured, insurance paid out but if they didn't have the evidence (footage from my dash cam), the thieves would never have been found, let alone punished.
This makes you sound as rational and logical as a 9/11 Truther.
You're also wrong.
Police can investigate these crimes fine. The problem is evidence. Unless you've got some that links them to the act, the thief will simply claim in court that they only received the goods unbeknownst that they were stolen. Without evidence to the contrary the Judge has to accept that explanation (innocent until proven guilty).
I have cameras in my house, in the entrance, kitchen and pointing at the driveway. In Australia, having footage quadruples the chance of a conviction and turning over the footage is voluntary (although if you want to get the guy who robbed you, highly recommended). When my car was stolen, the only reason the thieves were convicted was because of a low quality dash cam I had installed and they identified each other by name.
Secondly, in countries like the UK and Australia, Highway Patrol (and General Duties where there's no dedicated highway patrol) officers are responsible for enforcing road laws. Investigations are handled by CID (Crime Investigation Department, the detectives). A GD officer isn't trained to investigate a robbery, he'll take statements and send that through to CID and CID cant do jack shit if they have no evidence. Also, deaths on the roads are one of the biggest preventable killers in western countries, so you can be damn sure that time spent trying to punish bad drivers is time well spent.
Finally, these are private security cameras, Scotland yard is recommending that people install their own cameras under their control. The same as every shopping mall in the United States have installed, however when you realise that opposing that means you can never go to another Wallmart, Micky D's or Starbucks again, the silence is deafening.
Can we organize in some way to take tourism dollars away from countries like this?
Tourism isn't a big thing in the UAE precisely because of backwards crap like this.
The UAE has a lot of expats and guest workers. The "Guest Workers" are lured from places like India, Bangladesh and the Philippines so mostly they're beneath the notice of the average westerner (I guess we can call this a third world problem) which is a shame as the "Guest Workers" are really mistreated. As for the expats, they should know what they're getting into.
Personally I will refuse to travel to the UAE and try to avoid businesses that originate in the UAE (such as Emirates Airlines) because of the way the UAE operates.
Tricky? No. Simple. Same rules apply as when using the phone.
When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.
This is straightforward, simple concept.
Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post. That part is NOT tricky.
This is a simple is you assume no state is corrupt.
The problem you've got is you assume that US law applies everywhere. It doesn't.
When you enter another country, you become subject to the laws of those countries even if those laws can be applied retroactively. The US respects this convention (well at least openly pretends to) as they want other countries to respect their laws.
So what you do in California could get you in trouble in Russia if you go to Russia.
The only defence and solution to this is not to travel to countries where you may have violated the law in. 99% of these places are backwards shitholes, so it's relatively easy. Put simply, if you slag off the Emirs, you've got to be an idiot to go to the UAE.
Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?
Go look at the US ESTA application that all Australians have to fill out before travelling to the US.
There's a metric shitload that will get you rejected. Drugs, being associated with a banned group, moral turpitude (we dont even have anything like that on the books in Oz), having previously overstayed a Visa. If you lie on the application to get entry and the US finds out, they will arrest and deport you. At least they've now stopped asking if I'm a Nazi.
The US is one of the harder countries for Australians to gain entry to. Having a possession charge against you 10 odd years ago because you were caught with a joint means that in order to get authorisation to travel to the US you have to attend an interview at a US embassy to ensure you're not a drug user. Possession is a misdemeanour in Australia, you dont even go to court for it.
Those treaties were irrelevant by the time the Two-Ocean Navy Act passed. The Iowa class was free of treaty limits, as was the envisioned Montana class.
As I pointed out, the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) was largely violated by all sides.
But it was the previous naval treaties that lead to the development of the aircraft carrier as aircraft carrier tonnage was not counted in the same pool as battleships. The development of American aircraft carriers went over decades, in fact it was the Washington Naval Treaty in 1920 that caused several large battlecruisers to be converted into aircraft carriers after they were laid down (the Lexington class). The first purpose built carrier the US developed was the Ranger class laid down in 1931.
I believe that during the war, the US cancelled battleships that hadn't been laid down in favour of making more carriers.
Only the most advanced German ships were capable of matching the ships fielded by the allies and as you pointed out, they weren't that numerous.
However the battleship wasn't really a match for the aircraft carrier, this was made even worse by the fact that only British ships used radar controlled AA guns (I think the USN introduced this later in the war). If the US hadn't sunk 4 of the Japanese carriers at midway, they would have been significantly more of a threat than both the Yamato battleships put together.
I believe American technology and signals intelligence saw to it that he couldn't be there to see it, if memory serves correctly.
OP-20-G broke JN25 with a bit of help from the English, Dutch and Australians who along with the US had been working on JN25 since before the war.
After Yamamato's plane was shot down Japan guessed that the Americans had broken had broken one of their codes, but they guessed the wrong code.
Impossible, have you use Apple's mapping ?? He would have likely found the Bismarck had that been the case.
Looking for the Bismarck leads you to St Paul's Cathedral.
It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent
This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.
The increase in construction of Aircraft Carriers was a direct result of naval arms limitation treaties like The Washington Naval Treaty and The London Naval Treaty (not including the Second London Naval Treaty as that was almost universally broken). These treaties introduced limitations on the total displacement of all battleships that could be in various powers navies at any one time including the United States and Empire of Japan. After the Washington Naval Treaty was signed many of the battleships under construction were changed to become aircraft carriers to stay within the treaties limitations.
Aircraft carriers enjoyed a steady rise in numbers and technology as battleships stagnated from the 20's onwards.
Whilst the US, Japan and UK shifted focus to aircraft carriers, the Germans focused on building submarines and big gun heavy cruisers (pocket battleships) which turned out quite disastrously for them.
All they need to do is to pay the scammers with a CC and watch where the money goes. Then go knock some heads.
As they say, follow the money.
If it's that easy... Why are there still criminals?
The sad fact is, it's not that easy. The money is funnelled through shell companies and offshore (most of the time the shell company is offshore to begin with) where it cant be traced by US authorities and then moved around a bit more for good measure (in increasingly legit transactions, but realistically it's just one front paying another until the money becomes clean enough to use).
People need to get over this notion that next year a car will drive itself and you'll sit in the back with a Martini and the paper. That probably wont happen in our lifetimes
It'll happen during the next decade. Bet against Dr. Moore at your own peril.
(granted, the government will lag 20 years behind the technology, so we'll still have drunk drivers killing people when the autopilots would have been safer)
The concentration of transistors has nothing to do with this.
You rely on a bad interpretation of Moore's Law at your own peril.
The technology will be adopted slowly because any mistake will kill the technology. When your laptop crashes due to a production fault, you might lose a little bit of work that you'll have to redo, when a car crashes due to a production fault, there's a good chance people will die. So ordinarily cautious and conservative car companies will be even more cautious and conservative with autonomous cars because they know the first one to make a mistake is a dead company walking.
The problem isn't with hardware processing power, autonomous cars can work with HW which is currently available off the shelf. It's not even with hardware reliability that's a concern. The big question mark is in software reliability. We've got a very long way to go with that.
Not quite. It's "yes" because most people would be unable to get over their fear of flying in an entirely autonomous plane, not because we need heroic pilots to override the computer when things go wrong.
Consider that about half of all aviation accidents are traced to pilot error. The percentage of crashes caused by autopilot error is zero.
No,
Pilots are still there because autopilots can fail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
You didn't hear about this 4 years ago because no-one died... Thanks to some quick thinking by the "error prone" lumps of meat in the cockpit.
However when you're not being held at gun point, the ready access to coke and Mexican hookers seems like quite a perk.
Better than the bruised fruit and instant coffee my cheapskate boss puts out.
Story seems to be the setup for an episode of either Mission Impossible (original series), or maybe The A-Team (if you can find them).
Or the ideal excuse for a sick day.
"Uh, yeah, Boss, so I wont be coming into work today because I've been kidnapped and forced to work for a Mexican drug cartel as a sysadmin. Might be in on Tuesday if the hangov... Erm they decide to release me. Peace out."
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot? Well yes because machines aren't infallible.
For a long time, an autonomous car will not be driverless. People need to get over this notion that next year a car will drive itself and you'll sit in the back with a Martini and the paper. That probably wont happen in our lifetimes.
Initially, fully autonomous modes will only be permitted on certain roads (think limited access roads like highways, freeways and autobahns). This will last years as engineers are even more conservative than law makers. The next step is likely to be special lanes on A roads. It will be a long time before autonomous cars are good enough to operate on a B road or suburban street.
Ultimately, because the law requires someone to be responsible for the operation of the machine it means a qualified operator will need to be at the controls whilst in operation. Same with a lot of other automated systems (such as long distance trains).
I never got that impression. The moon was a self sustaining colony that trades with Earth. I don't recall any notion that the Earth was dependant on them for food.
but it has also been a good 25 or 30 years since I read it, so there is that.
The moon provides earth with food. The earth provided the moon with goods it could not manufacture on Earth (computers, electronics) as well as population (prisoners). The idea was that the moon provides a great deal of food as it costs little to nothing to drop payloads but the Earth provides the moon with very little as it was expensive to lift payloads.
The moon was not a self sufficient colony, it still required some resources from Earth.
Good luck explaining the finer points of a closed-cycle ecology, economics and politics in a 2-hour movie.
I fully expect that Manuel (Man) Davis to be a hard nosed, chisel-jawed, Lunar cop working closely with his partner, Mycroft Holmes (probably a robot) to defeat a crime syndicate.
Hollywood loves Heinlein's titles and backdrops, but hates his characters and stories.
And that's exactly why people end up viewing it as a militaristic or fascist society.
The problem with Heinlein's libertarian utopia is that it's one dimensional, you dont see anyone actually wanting to live outside the rules. It fails for the same reason true communism (marxism) fails, because it relies on everyone believing the same yet still having the same human traits they have now (or had in the 60's).
I understood the society that Heinlein was trying to convey in Starship Troopers and A Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, but I also see they're completely impossible. The notion that they're militaristic or fascist is the most logical jump people make in order to make the society fit in with reality. It's a disconnect that breaks suspension of belief, so in order to restore the suspension of belief people's brain makes the connection to systems of governance that do fit. This is pretty much the only thing that turns me off reading more Heinlein.
Good luck convincing a court that someone owes you money after you refused their cash.
If Canada are anything like other commonwealth countries, then it will go something like this:
Plaintiff: Your honour, the tender offered by the defendant was defaced.
Judge: I see, please pay the plaintiff in non defaced currency.
In Australia you can refuse payment by cash, a lot of businesses dont have the facilities to process it (mainly online businesses). Only certain types of businesses are forced to accept cash (most do because cash is such a useful medium and it's the cheapest, fastest way of facilitating small transactions).
Kommen sie! Ausweis? Heil!
Easy az bro, It is mean?