It's not that difficult to do, but:
1) you need to set it up ahead of time.
2) you make yourself vulnerable to a hacker activating it by accident.

P.S.: This is based on Linux, not Android, but it probably works the same. A logon activates a script at logon time. Write a shell script that actually runs an emulation of "rm -rf /*". (You can't actually use that, because it's been intentionally disabled as too dangerous to allow.)

If you were a Korean you wouldn't feel that way.

Militarism wasn't central to Mussolini's beliefs, it was derived...though I admit that the Roman model he used was strongly focused on militarism. The essentials was the binding together of the various interests of the state, as symbolized by the Roman fasces. Militarism was one tool to achieve this, and to allow that combined force to project its power. (Symbolized by the axe within the rods that were bound together.)

That part about syndicates sounds right though. I've got to admit that I don't understand the difference between syndicates and trade unions...unless they are intended to be company specific unions, which have a *very* bad history, and did even then, so I can't believe that he was pushing THAT.

About Mussolini's "moderate racism"... Just about everyone was racist to that extent at that time (with some major exceptions). Read some of the stuff that was being pushed on the public in the US. Hell, read Heinlein's "Fifth Column" or John W. Campbell's "Mightiest Machine". Or look into the history of IQ tests. And at that time there wasn't much hard evidence that race actually was unimportant. (There is now...but it's not totally solid, just essentially solid.)

OTOH, I guess I, also, tend to oversimplify Fascism, and think of it as the corporate state. I doubt that it would have been any better than the corporate state, but it sounds more like a traditional monarchy...without the "divine right of kings", or at least with that strongly backgrounded. Mussolini was a charismatic leader, but it's not clear what the follow on would have been, had that happened. (I wonder what Mao Tse Tung would think of modern China.)

Hmm...that sounds quite plausible, but labor wasn't stressed in the sources I read.

Sales is like magnetism, it's a natural force of the universe. Wrap some wire around a magnet, spin, and you've got electricity. Same thing with sales: take any product no matter how absurd, add professionals and boom, you've got a company with millions in revenue per year.

Someone is still using a Blackberry phone?

How else would you suggest that society could make sure that people driving vehicles on public roadways have at least some basic knowledge of how to safely operate a motor vehicle? The honor system?

At the boundary between your private land and the public road system.

It's not clear what the distinction you are trying to make is. What is the significant difference between "a privilege" and "a right subject to safety regulations", exactly? Call it what you want, either way you are allowed to drive as long as you follow the traffic laws, but if you abuse the right/privilege, it can be taken away from you.

Some people use a glove when firing a gun to prevent fingerprints and gunpowder residue. Then they burn the glove.

Similarly, it is possible to switch your license plate for that of a car that has a similar color and make, then speed. When you get home, switch it back.

The ability for a criminal to hide their crimes is not relevant to this discussion.

If you think that someone eating a BLT or handing out fliers can legally get you deported and beheaded than you need to take some legal courses.

The existence of illegal actions do not prove that those actions are legal, whether they are done by a citizen or by a country.

No offense, but you are an incredibly ignorant of the law and history. You mention history books but have no idea what is in them. My idea is not 'my idea' - it is century old accepted legal principle that diplomats and ambassadors use to site all the time. The US can't tell Britain what side of the road to ride on, we can't arrest Putin for murdering his opponent, and we can't arrest people in Mexico for playing music so loud that people in America can hear it.

But the internet came along, and ignorant people did not know how to deal with it so they suddenly said forget the principle.

The fact that a new technology comes along and makes it harder to stick by your principle does not mean your principle is stupid, nor does it mean you abandon the principle. It means you work to create a new set of laws to handle that issue. In this case, the proper way to deal with the internet problems is with treaties. Treaties that establish what laws are in each country.

If the treaties don't work, you go to war against that country. That's why we are fighting with ISIL. We disagree with the laws that they created in their own country, so we bomb them.

You seem to think that all problems can be solved by laws. No. Laws apply to their own nations, not other countries. International problems can not be solved by national laws, and this is clearly an international issue - it happened between 2 nations. You solve international problems with either treaties between countries or wars.

Your insistence on solving international problems with national laws is a bad idea. The long established concept of jurisdiction is an intelligent, well tested idea. The fact you can't tell the difference is indicative of your intelligence.

To give one example: chronic drunk drivers can have their licenses revoked. After that, they can no longer drive, and therefore are no longer a danger to the public.

As always, there are trade-offs to be made between freedom and safety. You clearly lean towards the "freedom" side, and that's fine, but society is not required to share your opinion about where the best place is to draw that line.

Walking and (to a lesser extent) bicycling are inherently less hazardous to other people, in that there is less mass moving less quickly in areas where other people might be. As a consequence, walking and bicycling are less heavily regulated than driving.

That said, there are also regulations governing walking and bicycling -- bicyclists have to obey traffic laws when on public roads, the same as any other vehicle, and even pedestrians are forbidden to jaywalk.

You seem to think that if there is a right to do something, then that activity cannot be regulated by the government for safety reasons. The law (and common sense) disagree with you.

Your objection makes little sense. First of all, International laws are not some strange set of things. Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.

International trade law has some severe penalties in taxes.

International criminal law is focused on the severe crimes I mentioned - Genocide and War crimes. There is NO international law against cyber-crime. That does not mean it has no teeth, it means it does not exist as a law.

In fact international criminal law lets the host country decide to prosecute first. It only goes to the international court if the host country would rather not try the case but want the court to try it. As such, it has SEVERE teeth - capable of imprisoning someone for life. But it has a loophole designed to let the host country have a veto on it. If they use the veto they lose reputation - which has some severe trade penalties - and possibly military ones as well.

Your comment about cybercrime being completely legal is true and pointless. As you pointed out already we have NO POWER TO ENFORCE THAT LAW AS IS, so my proposed rule does not create a new problem. It merely stops governments from abusing their current power.

My idea is well thought out, it simply does not solve all possible problems. Similarly, my idea does not cure AIDS, teach kids to read, or double your lifespan.

The question is does my idea cause more new problems or solve them. The answer to that is that it solves problem.

You are incorrect. Mainly because you are ignorant of how international laws work. There are treaties that various countries have agreed to. Specifically, the International Court of Justice is supported by a treaty that over 120 countries have agreed to. By agreeing to that treaty, those countries have ceded legal jurisdiction.

International Law does NOT apply to countries that have not accepted that treaty - including but not limited to China and India.

In addition, the treaty has exceptions that let countries attempt to bring charges in their home country rather than using the international court.

As for Drug cartels, they are rarely involved in International courts, in part because they do rarely violate the laws created by the treaty (which tend to focus on genocide and war crimes) and in part because their home countries would rather bring charges themselves.

So no what I propose would not in any way affect the International court of Justice