AirMessage requires you to run a server on macOS, and Texts only supports iMessage on macOS. That's why Apple doesn't mind, because neither of those services is hacking iMessage itself.
They've already come up with better, cheaper, more efficient methods. They don't need Sudafed anymore, so removing the stupid restriction won't affect meth production at all.
Do you actually believe this? It seems completely ignorant of human behavior to me.
You see, it's not about dealing with large-scale operations. It's about keeping that one neighbor you have who always makes poor choices from grabbing 1000 boxes of Sudafed and blowing up their house. They don't care what the industrial process is, they care what they can get away with in their living room.
Throttle access to pseudoephedrine sufficiently and they will look elsewhere. Make it easy to get and they'll DIY. You know, I even admire the DIY spirit involved. I just don't admire the externalities.
The subtext of your argument is that you think you can legislate away human behavior.
There is a cheap process to make meth, and there’s another process that involves Sudafed. Banning Sudafed does not stop meth production. But here you are still supporting a ban on Sudafed - because of what some theoretical person might do with it ignoring that they’re doing it now without it.
I don’t believe this is a logical failure, I believe whatever culture you grew up in imparted this way of thinking.
The culture I grew up in is one where this happened about once a month. Well, before Sudafed became hard to get. Then the rate of it occuring dropped precipitously.
It's almost like people in fact do base their choices on what's easily available.
The reason they don't allow expired licenses for alcohol purchases is because an older, similar-looking person (sibling, etc.) could just give their expired license to someone who's underage.
They could do the same with current licenses, either temporarily or permanently. When I was in my 20's I had a stack of old but unexpired drivers licenses because having your current address on your license makes makes some things easier.
That’s why a lot of places now scan the ID. Presumably the vast majority of times whoever lost/gave up/sold the ID got a new one from the local BMV and the old one will be flagged.
I don't think (really, "I hope") that these scans aren't hitting the government database, allowing the government to easily build a dataset of every time you buy alcohol/tobacco/pornography/whatever -- that is uncomfortable even to me and I'm not really a libertarian.
The 2d barcodes and magstripes on these cards do have all the info that's printed, though, so I would bet that a "gifted" ID that hasn't expired but which you've replaced or claimed as lost would still work at a retailer who scans IDs.
And the reason they insist on checking the ID of a 40 year old man with gray in his beard and photoaged skin is because... 1) A teenager might be a special effects makeup artist.. or 2) because the law compels them to be bureaucratic twats who follow the rules even when the rules make no sense.
The correct answer is number 2, and that's the real reason they won't accept expired IDs either.
Incidentally, the TSA does accept expired IDs. I flew with one and TSA didn't say anything to me; they scanned it into their computer then waved me through like normal. Then the bartender at the airport pointed it out and refused to serve me.
YMMV, re: TSA. My wife's license was due to expire a week after flying, and they gave her a bunch of shit about how lucky she was that she wasn't trying to leave the following week.
Probably more because they wanted to give her shit (notably pretty, or notably mean to them?) than anything else.
Personally, when in a stirring shit mood, it can be fun to ask them what section of the law/code they think says that. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a straight answer from TSA, and very rarely a straight answer from a police officer.
When I’ve been travelling with things that have specific actual laws that apply to them, I’ve taken to printing out the actual applicable laws (and their policies). It’s rare they actually follow them at first (and multiple times I’ve had them instruct me to do something that would violate them, or had they themselves violate them), but showing them politely usually helps.
I even had TSA once (many years ago), bring me my checked luggage with a gun in it (legally) to the gate in the terminal, and ask me to unlock it right there and demonstrate it was unloaded. A case with ammunition in it too (also legally). To do that demonstration, I’d have to pick it up and manipulate it.
I politely declined, not wanting to get shot or arrested, and showed them their policy instead which is that needed to be done before security, outside of the ‘sterile area’ - and I in fact had done so. They insisted a couple more times, I insisted I wasn’t going to violate the law or their policies, they got a supervisor which got angry at them, and they eventually left. And it was transported to my destination, unmolested, as was I.
Still a hassle, and quite concerning - they either legitimately thought it might be loaded and transported it anyway, or were so confused they did that song and dance for awhile until they could figure it out - and thought the answer was to have the passenger handle a potentially loaded gun in the secure area of the airport to demonstrate everything was actually fine? Or wanted to jam me up by creating an actual crime in progress?
No actual feel good answers to be found there, unfortunately.
> Personally, when in a stirring shit mood, it can be fun to ask them what section of the law/code they think says that. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a straight answer from TSA, and very rarely a straight answer from a police officer.
In the US, the reality we live in is that knowledge of the law is explicitly not a requirement for these jobs. A police officer is not required to know what law you are breaking, and can legally arrest you if they genuinely believe you are breaking a law they only imagine exists.
Whether this ought be the case is a separate discussion. But this is the landscape in which a series of court decisions have left us.
Apparently some Canadian carriers do also have this as a SOP.
Around the time this happened I spoke to some friends who are ATCs (in the US) who all immediately agreed it was a very reasonable request, especially given that the request was made far enough out (so it wasn't like they'd have to quickly scramble to respace the incoming planes correctly in the sequence).
Because Lufthansa left a few hours late they arrived during a super busy arrival window. AFAIK ATC had nearly 30 planes already in the queue for landing with spacing for visual. To get Lufthansa in any sooner they'd need to send updated instructions to a lot of planes to make a gap.
If Lufthansa had arrived two hours earlier or later it wouldn't have been an issue. Indeed they were able to depart OAK around two hours later and land at SFO via IFR with no problems.
SFO handles a lot of traffic for having just two active runways - one of the reasons they constantly operate in parallel. Much like other super busy constrained airports (eg JFK) they have very little room to accommodate special requests.
Ideally Lufthansa would have let ATC know of this need while still a long way out so they could build a bubble in the sequence ahead of time but I don't know if procedures even allow for that.
> It's so "justified and reasonable" that nobody else does it.
Airlines are a cutthroat business and many will go for profit rather than for safety if they're allowed to. The large American airlines, for what it's worth, are actually loss leaders [1].
I assume GP is assuming it would be hanging freely in (in-wall) conduit, which is pretty uncontroversially the best way to do it, just very hard to retrofit.
And if you are retrofitting a cable run, yeah it probably will be 'just hanging freely behind the walls'.
I've been in a newly constructed home with Cat-6, and they stapled it. This was within the last year.
From builder's perspective it is "controversial" to run conduit because they're trying to tick boxes as cheaply/fast as possible and conduit is the exact opposite of that goal. If you want conduit, I'd assume you have to pay for it as a bespoke upgrade.
We had the perfect opportunity to dump it into the wastebin of history when TVs switched to HD, but for some damn reason the industry decided to carry it forward.
Provisioning for overscan on 1080i CRTs seems just as valuable as with 480i CRTs.
People want content to the edge of the screen, but not to pay a TV technician to come and calibrate their tube to exacting standards in their home. Content creators need to know that some of their broadcast is invisible to some of their viewers as a result.
Pixel perfect tvs came later, so the transiton to HD wasn't the right time. ATSC3 could have been a reasonable time to change, but then broadcasters couldn't use the same feed for ATSC1 and ATSC3 ... and who knows if ATSC3 will ever win over ATSC1, or if all the OTA TV spectrum will be refarmed to telcos before that happens.
You would be surprised how many movies on dvd/bluray have junk in the margins. Usually just a line or an overscan of the audio track. But a lot of them have it.
I turn off overscan as those artifacts do not bother me.
Sometimes you can see the closed captions line of the NTSC signal at the top of the frame of the video when watching an old show converted to digital from an NTSC source. It looks like a single line of black and white dashes which dances around quickly every time the onscreen captions would have changed and then sits static until the captions update again.
