Even back then they had submarines with room for nuclear missiles in them. You could certainly remove the armaments from an "ordinary" attack sub and fill the space with an array. It would be nontrivial and expensive, but they're spending our money.
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment
In the USPS recommended actions, there is. In federal law, there is not. The legal definition of unordered merchandise is "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient" (See USC 39 3009(d)). The people ordered some merchandise but what they received was something else that was mailed without prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
IMO, returning the Vita is the moral and mannerly thing to do, and the company should pay for shipping and perhaps even compensate the recipient for their time to return it (maybe a free game or something). But per US law, the recipient has no obligation to return it. Of course, as noted, this incident took place in the UK and under UK law, with which I'm unfamiliar.
"Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?"
[...] The other law I mentioned DOES apply. No, I don't have a citation at hand, but I sure hope you see that this one simply isn't relevant to the case described in TFA
I don't see that at all. USC 39 3009(d) seems perfectly clear to me, and to cover this situation quite well. If there is another statute that is a better fit then that one would take precedence, but in the absence of the law you claim exists but cannot cite, USC 39 3009 would apply just fine.
Further, if the law you reference exists, I can't find it. Clearly it would belong in Title 39 - POSTAL SERVICE. Within Title 39, the obvious place for it is part IV - MAIL MATTER. Within part IV, chapter 30 - NONMAILABLE MATTER doesn't seem like an obvious fit, but it's better than any of the others. And finally, within chapter 30, there's nothing that fits other than section 3009.
Perhaps the law you're referring to is a state law, not federal? If so, it may or may not be valid, to the extent it conflicts with federal law. But even to the extent it is valid, it applies only in the relevant state, not the US as a whole.
This recent work basically suggests that the theory might be true.
Are you sure? It seems more to me like it suggests that the theory might not be false. Lots of models look accurate right up until they don't.
If it turns out that the spies were stopping a James Bond level supervillain every month or so then it might have been worth it.
That's the problem with all of this massive state defense apparatus bullshit. I know people who are various types of special forces and they will happily tell you that there are real threats out there, but then they will tell you that they can't tell you anything about them. In truth, they actually know fuck-all, and are just going by whatever their higher-ups have told them. They have no idea who the hell they're being sent out to kill, except what they're told.
In fact, our military has been shown to act primarily for profit, not for defense. Poor, brainwashed dupes. I'd feel worse for them if they weren't killers for hire.
I'm fat, clean, and Mexican. I have a big fat question mark about the phrase spic and span.
Blackholing doesn't work for me, because I regularly come across sites that won't work.
This is only a big problem for me on mobile, where Adblock Plus doesn't exist and noscript doesn't work. There exists a mobile noscript but it breaks every other page load or so, and the developer is unresponsive.
Unskippable, right up until the point I run it through a computer to format-shift the content to a medium that isn't under someone else's control.
I've got a ton of DVDs that don't rip correctly, though, with any ripper; not with dvdbackup, nor with DVDFab, etc etc. I can rip them to a collection of DVD files and play that successfully in most cases, but that doesn't get me out of unskippable ads. XBMC does that. I can skip things I'm not supposed to be able to skip.
Over the past few years, the "Linux community" now includes millions of people who accept locked bootloaders as standard and install closed source apps from an app store whose goal is to collect as much information about them as possible.
Users have outnumbered developers at least since Slackware. Build a bridge, and clamber over it awkwardly.
Gaming is kiddy shit (sorry) and it's naive to expect much idealism from from the core audience.
Not that you're not a known troll, but there are now more adult gamers than juvenile ones*, and gaming now brings in more money than movies.
For Linux to reach a larger audience means catering to portions of that audience who just want free stuff.
Oddly, it also means catering to the portions of that audience who just want to give away free stuff.
* According to a 2007 Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey, more than half (53 percent) of American adults play video games, and about one in five adults (21%) play every day or almost every day.
What happens once all the still-working used netbooks on Amazon are bought up?
Then you buy chromebooks. They are sold at a similar price point (the low-end ones anyway) and will generally run full-fledged Linux, or in some cases even other operating systems.
The comments on this article make a good reality check for Libertarians.
They make a good reality check for anyone. Nobody should expect the receiver to pay for return shipping. I guess libertarians are most likely to expect that, though. After all, if you want to maintain the system, you'll have to pay for it.
Although they state that "unsolicited goods" can be treated as unconditional gifts that do not need to be returned, and that it is illegal for the sender to threaten legal action - the legislation they are based on adds the qualification that this only applies if there was no "prior request made by or on behalf of the recipient".
But without reading the law in question, and I would have no idea where to start because it's not US law, what does that actually mean? Prior request for what? A prior request for anything? If I buy a Lamborghini Hat and then I am delivered a Lamborghini Aventador, does that count? I certainly haven't requested a car. Likewise, these people haven't requested a PS Vita.
But what is the *right* thing to do?
Keep it, to motivate them to get their shit straight next time. They write it off as a loss and maybe make some kind of insurance claim. Maybe they fire the person responsible, do a little housecleaning.
if somebody sends me something by mistake, then asks for it back, they are getting it back because that's what I would want them to do if I sent them something by mistake.
Maybe you shouldn't be sending things to people by mistake. It's pretty hard for an individual to do.