Sorry, but poor excuse for racism is poor and wrong.

Europe has far more tourism, especially to developing countries and does not have the same issue. This has also been going on for decades so if it were those evil foreigners, why is it only now just becoming a problem.

The answer is, it isn't the foreigners. The cause is the large anti-science and anti-vaccination movements that have sprung up in the last 20-30 years and have become particularly popular in the last 10. If we drew a Venn diagram of anti-vaxxers and racists we'd also find a lot of overlap.

"Free" clinics... What are you, some kind of Columnunist like those dang people over in You-Rope?

Poor people should die without medical care because they cant afford it... That's Freedom Fries health care. None of that caring about people, helping the sick or poor... That ain't in the bible.

If we don't stop this kind of thing now the next thing you'll they'll start demanding European style happiness.

Cookie popus appeared on EU websites only 7-ish years ago, not 20+-ish.

I should know, I live there. And I was around since a lot longer than 2002 or 2018.

"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another." --Malcolm Reynolds

(Ironically applies well to Joss Whedon himself. Kind of wonder if one of the show writers was thinking about Joss when they wrote that...)

The only single-source point of failure is me.

Apparently in our discussion "violation" is an unfortunate word, as you seem to associate that with something bad, undesirable. (As your word "excuse" hints at.)

A "violation" is not nexessarily bad;
but feel free to use "limitation" insteadin your head, if it's easier for you...

Anyway, to the point: it doesn't matter whether something "excuses" something else or not, as this isn't about "violation" being something bad. It's entirely about the concept od 'llimiting" the amount of power that an individual in a poaition of relative advantage can exert over another individual.

We already have those kind of limitations in place elsewhere in contract related laws, and everyone agrees that they're good (e.g. when signing a contract under duress, or when requiring that a contact not be one-sided only).

OTOH everyone also agrees that there should be no limitation when the contract is balanced and there's no power gradient, e.g. when buying a benign pack of candy in a candy store.

What we have here is something in between: nobody is "under duress" strictly speaking, but the situation is anything but balanced. Somebody is (ab)using their position of relative power.

So now the discussion can't be about the principle of it - we've already established that, either way, the principles are sound and within the realm of something we already do.

Instead it's about where to draw the line.

As such, your comment from earlier does nothing to clarify or sustain a point.

"Freedom of contract" isn't holy you know. It is already "violated" by a lot of other provisions deaigned tomprotect those who are at a systematic disadvantage.

This has nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production a.k.a. socialism.

If the courts grow a pair and say "it's obvious the lighter isn't your main product, the ticket is" - because it is/i indeed obvious - then this won't fly.

Yeah, that was a big goof, thanks for understanding.

Apple is capable of hiring talented people and creating a useful product. They just don't seem to be capable of being user-friendly in the ways that matter to me. TBH they were never great at it, and MUGs did the heavy lifting in the customer relations department for them for free. Anyway I'm totally capable of believing their performance claims, to a reasonable point, especially when the results aren't putting them first.

I wish they were friendlier, because their hardware is reasonably impressive. I'm also just not in their target demographic apparently because I'd rather have a slightly thicker device with better cooling and battery capacity.

Also to Doc Holliday.

It's not impossible, but the switch would be expensive. It's probably easier and just as effective just to shield them, and tie the shield to the chassis ground.

Another option would be to switch power to the radio chip, if it's in a package which makes that convenient. This might also disable bluetooth if you do it to the infotainment system, or cause a code to be set...

Antibacterial soap doesn't use antibiotics, it uses chemicals known to destroy antibiotics directly and physically. It's usually done with compounds they can't reasonably develop resistance to. This is easier than in antibiotics because they don't have to be safe to put in your body.

That is not what this story is about.

You have lost the plot.

This is about whether a hostile third party can affect a vehicle remotely because of manufacturer incompetence.

New radio older than old radio? Wow.

What I find actually surprising is not in the headline but is in the summary: Mediatek is superior.

You know some of these US cities full of anti vaxxers have lower vaccination rates than third world countries right?