Monday, 31 July 2017

Hacked Credit Card 1st August 2017

 4941330104126805 0819 699 - 1.10 : APPROVED! - [ 1 ] - AVS CODE : [ G ] - AVS MATCH (GLOBAL AVS ADDRESS) : [ 1  | 0 ] - CVV MATCH


 5112384003123074 0820 969 - 7.00$ - 00 APPROVED  BIN: United States - DEBIT - STANDARD - FAUQUIER BANK

 4941330106254993|12|2021|184|MEXICO|CARLOS|TEJEDA|C. CUAUHTEMOC|Mxico||44450|3356470997|TuE-mail||

 5403247538560466|09|2019|265|UNITED STATES|CHELSEA|MCBRYANT|1904 NATCHEZ RD|EDMOND||73012|

[19:36] Deleter 5403247489035807|10|2019|091|UNITED STATES|Marsha|Chism|17117 Squirrelhill Road|Hidden Valley Lake||95467|

 5403247489035807 1019 091 - $5.36 : APPROVED!! |Marsha|Chism|17117 Squirrelhill Road|Hidden Valley Lake||95467|

 |4400664923001771|2019/07|608|Ronald|Tucker, Georgia 30084,3683 Fowler Avenue|

 5403247529177163|01|2021|206|UNITED STATES|William|Eichenberger|23 Edison Avenue|Gillette||82716

 5403247575356950|09|2019|777|UNITED STATES|Raymond Chavez|45 horseshoe circle|Las cruces|88007|

 371336832743008 10/21 7136 Bruce Blevins 699 VZ CR 3111 Edgewood STATE 75117 UNITED STATES 7184271840

 4426309995193896|01|2020|732|UNITED STATES|Breanna|Nelson|1004 Newall Rd|Newberg||97132-2051|5037160466|||Mozilla5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 1032 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit603.2.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version10.0 Mobile14F89 Safari602.1|||

how to back up contacts from oneplus one to google account

you have to move your contacts from SIM card or Phone storage to the Gmail

Go to the contacts app and in the menu ( 3 dots in top right corner ) there is Import/Export.
Select Import from SIM.
Now mark all contacts you want to move, there is button to Select all
Click ok and select to move them to Google account
Now wait till it sync your contacts into Gmail, they will be visible at Google contacts

WWE RAW 31 July 2017 Highlights HD - WWE Monday Night Raw 7/31/2017 Highlights HD

WWE RAW 31 July 2017 Highlights HD - WWE Monday Night Raw 7/31/2017 Highlights HD

Can a U.S. Senator block the Vice President from voting by not attending a vote and having the results be 49-50?

The U.S. Constitution states

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
I understand that if a Senator's vote is "Present" then it counts as a "No" in the tally, but what if the Senator doesn't attend the vote. There are votes in the Senate Vote tallys that do not add up to 100 votes, so it has happened in the past.

Vote Counts: YEAs 56
             NAYs 39 
       Not Voting  5
Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session

Since this vote is not "equally divided" would the Vice President be able to vote (if it was 49-50).

Has this been under judicial review in the past?


If a Senator missed a vote (deliberately or not), and all other Senators are present and voting, it would deny the VP the opportunity to break a tie. However, there's no point to deliberately doing this.

Senator supports the measure, Senate is 50-49 without them.

If the Senator votes, the final vote would be 51-49. The VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy.
If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 50-49. The vote passes without their help, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy.
Senator supports the measure, Senate is 49-50 without them.

If the Senator votes, the final vote would be 50-50. The VP would break the tie, whichever way the VP chooses. Senator is happy if the VP agrees.
If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 49-50. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is sad.
Senator opposes the measure, Senate is 50-49 without them.

If the Senator votes, the final vote will be 50-50. The VP would break the tie, whichever way the VP chooses. Senator is happy if the VP agrees.
If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 50-49. The vote passes, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is sad.
Senator opposes the measure, Senate is 49-50 without them.

If the Senator votes, the final vote will be 49-51. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy.
If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 49-50. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy.

In other words, choosing not to vote can only make a difference if the VP and Senator agree, and can only result in making the Senator sad. There is no scenario where the Senator is better off by not voting.

WWE RAW 31 July 2017 , Brock Lesnar & Heyman return to Raw with an earth-stuttering announcement!

WWE RAW 31 July 2017 , Brock Lesnar & Heyman return to Raw with an earth-stuttering announcement!

Mexico Hacked Credit Card

 5256782034901994 | 2021 | 06 | 345 | Nallely Becerril | Dvila |    Mexico | Banco Nacional De Mexico, S.a.  Mastercard | Standard | debit

 371336092181014 04/20 4530 Nanette Keppler 13654 Falcon Way McCordsville IN 46055 UNITED STATES 317

 4426309995896522|09|2017|028|UNITED STATES|Kelly G. Coons|1310 w. Darland dr.|goldendale|WA|98620|509 261 1283|

Canada Hacked Credit Card With High Balance

 5434401820697147 1120 251 CANADA|tammy|harder|1002, 10035-114 st|edmonton|t5k1r6|CA||||||

United States Hacked Credit Card

 4465420295942940 03/20 123 Asa Sanford 4835 E Hanover Ct Sioux Falls SD 57110 Approvd cc

[05:10] <SMILE379597785441005 02/21 7908 Eugene Ficyk 18824 Blue Skies Street

 5465407112879618 08/20 976 nestor cordova matazano 3 ave el olmo 137 soyapango Por favor, seleccionar regi_n, estado o provincia ZIP UNITED STATES

4465420343893616 05/18 717 Unknown Ortiz 1205 Crows Nest Ct New Bern NC 28560 

 --- 4912390003119199 08/19 045 Michael Roels 2575 Old Glory Road Suite 500 Clemmons NC 27012 UNITED STATES - APPROVED !!-----

 4465420498028018 02/19 860 Drew Robinson 51873 Eshom Valley Dr Badger CA 93603 

 5305892000442203 10/17 415 Jaylen Gillespie 5823 E Copper Mountain Dr Spotsylvania VA 22553 !- Approved !!
Approved cc
 4465420339040115 09/17 866 Zackary Lane 11317 Drive In Rd Breese IL 62230 A

[04:49] <SMILE377269845107024 01/21 4883 Denise m brown 27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 700
pproved cc

Brazil Hacked Credit Card

 4282673280126017 03/22 218 dayvson gustavo cidade tabajara paulista Pernambuco 53404-520 BRAZIL (81) 3433-5085

“The time for talk is over”, says the US, but what talking have they been doing?

With regards to North Korea, the US now come out and say "the time of talk is over", but what talking has occurred between North Korea and the US?

I do not recall reading anything about talks, rather it seems that US have threatened NK all the way from the beginning, imposed sanctions, encouraged Russia and China to do something about NK, etc, etc.

What "talks" are being referred to here?

Surely a "talk" would be a two-way communication in which North Korea's wishes are taken into account. Making demands and handing out punishments if those demands aren't met certainly does not seem like a "talk" to me.


The "talks" were the six party talks involving NK, SK, China, Rusia, Japan and USA. They were held between 2003 and 2009, and ended with NK withdrawing from the talks and declaring itself not bound by any agreements made.

There have been occasional attempts to get the talks started again, but there is very little goodwill from either the American or NK side.

Note:- Answer may be updated with time

Sunday, 30 July 2017

Is the Affordable Care Act safe after the Republicans failed to repeal it?

Theoretically, the Republicans can try to repeal it again, as many times and for as long as they want - or at least until they get thrown out of office by mad voters.

In practice, the longer it's around, the more political capital will be required to repeal it, and thus the less likely it'll get repealed. Republicans standing against their own camp on grounds that their own voters might lose their insurance is a telling sign that this is occurring today.

That being said, what the administration could also do - and in fact, already started to do - is try to sabotage it in some way or another. For instance by trying to defund it somehow, by adding a few layers of red tape, etc. The point being, if they somehow manage to set things up so the ACA is almost guaranteed to look like a failure (if only by a few criteria) a few years down the road, then they could gather enough momentum to try to repeal it again when it does. (Or maybe, as Trump tweeted, it'll implode all by itself.)

Indian hacked credit for Online Shopping at Amazon


4854991600380413 Cvv: 183 Expm: 08 Expy: 18 Fname: Manish Lname: K Murty Address: test City: MUMBAI State: MH Zip: 400069 Country: INDIA Phone: 9826721260 Email:

Intel packs a neural network into a USB stick

They may be modeled on the human brain, but neural networks are far better than we are at sorting through huge amounts of data and identifying patterns. Now, to make these powerful AI systems more accessible to smaller-scale developers and businesses, Intel acquisition Movidius is launching the Neural Compute Stick, which packs deep learning algorithms into a standard USB thumb drive.

Over the years, the brain-power of neural networks has been set loose on cancer screening, mapping the human genome, and creating trippy works of art. But most of these endeavors have come out of big organizations like Google.

With the Movidius Neural Compute Stick, Intel says it's "democratizing" the technology, so we might see creative applications from small-scale developers, such as rigging up an AI system to stop cats pooping on the lawn. The brain of the Stick is a Myriad 2 visual processing unit (VPU), which is specifically designed for mobile and wearable devices. That means it's fast and fully-programmable, yet has an ultra-low power consumption and a small physical footprint.

"The Myriad 2 VPU housed inside the Movidius Neural Compute Stick provides powerful, yet efficient performance – more than 100 gigaflops of performance within a 1W power envelope – to run real-time deep neural networks directly from the device," says Remi El-Ouazzane, vice president and general manager of Movidius. "This enables a wide range of AI applications to be deployed offline."

The device can be tuned to run both industry standard and custom-designed neural networks, and can also be used as an accelerator, boosting the brain power of an existing computer.


Can the US president unilaterally hurt Congress members financially?


Recently, the US president posted yet another tweet, stating that:

If a new Health Care Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!
The second part of this tweet caught my attention. From what I interpret it, the president would like to punish the members of Congress financially for not passing a law that he approves. This had me wondering if the US president is able to unilaterally hurt the members of Congress financially. Would this be part of his executive powers and what would be the mechanism to obtain such a result?

I am only asking if and how Trump could substantiate his threat. I am not asking if it would be a wise or realistic thing to do.


Can he directly attack their pay check as members of Congress? No. It is not within the presidents enumerated powers to confiscate, redirect, or withhold their pay check.

Can he engage the agencies of the Executive department to damage them in their home state? Yes. Just look at the threats he made against Sen. Lisa Murkowski following her vote. Threats ranged from delaying Federal Projects in their state, to stalling oil drilling.

Can he make it hard for them to remain in congress? Yes. He has threatened Representative Sanford of South Carolina, and others, with supporting a primary challenger against. He made a thinly veiled threat against Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, while he was sitting beside him.

Can he affect the funding provided by the Republican Party, Congressional Leadership Fund, et al? Not really, but his output can chill the waters

Saturday, 29 July 2017

India Hacked Paypal With Email and Password

email :

password : indiaki56zx789

90th birthday of China's People's Liberation Army

90th birthday of China's People's Liberation Army

American Express Hacked Credit Card

 371243763662027 02/22 0171 Claire Russell 250 Galbraith Ave. Kerrville Texas 78028 UNITED STATES 8302856739

 379781404261008 10/20 7636 sandra keatts 405 gallery rd axton Virginia 24054 UNITED STATES 2767345737

 371557074553009 02/22 8450 Michelle Redd 6350 South Drexel Chicago Illinois 60637 UNITED STATES (773)551-5153

 372721232092016 05/22 5091 Myriam Edwards P.O Box 7671 Wilson North Carolina 27893 UNITED STATES 252-399-0143

 378343450984115 0320 5295 lucas pelcher 382 hercules drive, suite 4 382 hercules drive, suite 4 05446 COLCHESTER US 8026553533

 377235152464019 12/19 9137 Jill Allison 2009 Val Verde,Austin,78732

How COOL is this Mini Selfie Drone?

Takes Selfie Pics and Videos while in the Air! Control it with your cell phone!

buy this amazing product by clicking the banner below

see video and then buy

What should someone from the US know when driving in Italy?


For instance, I know one should not turn on red lights, which is different from US/Mass. rules.

What are other things which can confuse a driver from US while driving in Italy? More generally, are there things a North American driver should know about driving in Europe?


Here are some advice. This is focused on those aspect of road safety (e.g. "how bad they drive") to warn the reader and have him prepared for a safer defensive drive. For this reason, please remember that while from my explanation Italian motorists will intentionally look insane to you, they have a very strong defensive drive concept and actually drive quite safe according to recent crash and fatality statistics. Also my answer is targeted at any U.S. citizen wishing to visit Italy, so I am posting trivial advice's as well.


Roads are narrower than NA, drivers are quite aggressive. Expect people to accelerate on red/yellow light and cross timely like Swiss watches.

Expect narrow roads, but with even less space because of cars [illegally] parked "2nd lane". Remember that with red light you must stay still and wait for the green.

Use your indicators despite other motorists may not do so. Keep your distance from car in front of you despite some won't. Motorbike's will pass you from every direction, right included. They know their vehicle and the road, so just don't assume that no one is on your right. Take a look at your mirror, every car is mandated to have both. Do not be an obstacle. Better to use indicators more than less. But other drivers are very well prepared to act if you forget to announce your turn.

Remember that if you are turning right on green there may be pedestrians crossing. Stop for them because they have green

Look carefully to the right

Image courtesy local newspaper

General rule: incoming from the right has right to pass. City trams always have precedence, buses don't have special treatments. In a roundabout, you must give way to your left. People will try to provoke you on a STOP. Italians are used to not to politely stop for allowing other vehicles to enter the main road, so they found their own technique. A car stops at intersection for allowing crossing vehicles to pass and avoid a crash, but slowly puts the nose into the intersection so that eventually will obstruct the path. Drivers will mostly thank/salute each other with gesture.

Another thing to remember is that Italians tend to occupy all and more of the lanes during congestion's. Expect three rows of vehicles on road with only one-and-half lane.


Almost impossible to find a free parking in big cities. Get used to it. Beware of these rules on horizontal signs:

White: free for all
Blue: must pay parking fee
Yellow: need permission (e.g. handicap driver, police, residents)
Bus/taxi lanes

Traffic prohibited

They are difficult to spot. The above is the standard sign for forbidden traffic. It is mostly accompanied by an explanation tab below citing exceptions, e.g. "eccetto bus e taxi" (except buses and taxes). Because of the rules complexity, foreigners are recommended to stick to the above presciption and stay away from those roads/lanes. Often you will find a mandatory prescription to stay on the right (Arrow pointing southeast on blue background, anyone can edit this post with a picture), follow that.

Restricted traffic areas - ZTL

ZTL is acronym for Zona a traffic limitation and there is plenty of literature on it. They are patrolled by enforcement cameras and you will see a lot of vehicles using them. That is the most common trap for motorists from different Italian cities. I know of lawyers negotiating with court for packages of dozens of traffic violations to the same individual (yes, court often discounts multiple repeated sanctions bona fide into a smaller penalty).

ZTLs are not 24/7 and often they are accompanied by an electronic display indicating where entry is permitted or not. Use them wisely.

ZTL Firenze

Courtesy of Mayor of Florence

Right of way

The image and quotation for this paragraph are taken from literature to explain the cultural differences between IT and NA motorists. Please follow me for a few minutes in this.

Promessi Sposi

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

In the Betrothed novel a very famous quote between noblemen says "Fate luogo voi, la diritta รจ mia" ("You move out, the right is mine"). Noblemen from early centuries had to stop and allow noblemen from higher rank to pass. On foot.

The above is unfortunately applied to road traffic. Motorists sighting (from distance) a vehicle who want to enter an intersection and who is giving the right will likely accelerate and/or flash, even if they have sufficient distance to slow down and allow the inbound vehicle to safely cross the intersection.

Law says that vehicles must allow precedence to vehicles from the right already entering the intersection or who don't have sufficient space to brake. STOPs and PRECEDENCEs (reverse triangles) means you allow left and right traffic before yourself. But that does not imply that drivers should politely allow traffic from alternating directions.

The explanation is cultural.

Drivers think that of the right of pass as a constitutionally-granted human right. According to the above quote.

Also drivers fear that a vehicle slow to restart may slow the entire traffic down. This is why the "nose trick" always works. I am waiting for my first crash to tell the other driver "the right is not the Manzonian novel right".

So drivers will just make your life difficult in entering an intersection, whether cross-intersection or roundabout.

Roundabouts in Naples

Who said roundabouts? OK here we are again on the topic

For reasons unknown to me, there is a strange behavior that is self-compensated. Neapolitan drivers will not left-give-way on roundabouts. They will lauch their cars into the roundabout stopping vehicles on their left (who should pass), but immediately will stop for vehicles incoming from the right

Roundabout In the rest of Italy, bike wait for red before entering. In Naples, red will brake allowing bike to enter, bike will brake for other traffic from his left.

Out of town

Headlights on every time. This may cost you a sanction.


Courtesy of Ministry of Internal Affairs

Remember that speeds are in km/h. If you are driving at 75, you may need to ACCELERATE. Excessively-slow speed is an offense but is mostly never sanctioned (out of curiosity, the fine equals to speeding +10km/h).

Right lane is not for the socially-unlucky, and you will not be infected by leprosy or hepatitis driving there. That is one thing Italian motorists never understand. Right lane is for everyone when it is free, and you are supposed to drive on the rightmost free lane all the time except when passing or when traffic is congestioned. Expect few drivers to follow this rule. Some may argument that speed limits are enough slow that vehicles drive all at same (fastest) speed.

You will find a lot of drivers sticking without a reason on the leftmost lane just because they are driving at the speed limit or worse 10 below. And because of this sometimes drivers do the illegal "Gattuso maneuver" (a football-related metaphor for right pass).

Also beware of safe distance and tailgating. One of the most annoying things you will find in this country is that while on intense-traffic conditions you are keeping you safe speed and safe distance from your front vehicle, someone from the right lane will indicate and occupy that safe space you left, slowing you down to compensate. More vehicles will start passing you from the right. Annoying...

On toll highways, beware of the yellow Telepass lanes Different toll payment

Courtesy of Highway company

Rule of thumb:

White: cash and cards
Blue: credit cards only. No fees!!!!
Yellow: Telepass, e-tolling equivalent to EZPass
Picking the yellow lane without the proper RFID device may result in a sanction. While the rule existed since long, it is being gradually enforced since 2017

Exceptions are some experimental northern highways implementing free-flow tolling for everyone, not just subscribers. I don't want to tell the full story here. Grab your link and see yoruself.

Tolling without booth

Also mind that the rightmost lane, outside of continuous white stripe, is a breakdown lane. It is a severe offense to abuse it, especially when you feel the temptation of skipping traffic.

On the contrary, when traffic is stuck you are legally allowed to use the last 500 metres of the breakdown lane to reach the next exit.

Speeding, misbehaving, sanctions and other safety

Here are a lot of advice on popular topics:

You know the official speed limits, I won't repeat myself. Do not expect to find them often at maximum, most roads mandate slower speeds. Beware of signals!
Speed traps are illegal. Yes, the police cannot hide themselves and spot you
Speed detectors must be signaled well in advance and well visible to the offender
Most speed enforcement comes from very-well-known fixed spots, for which there is plenty of maps, official lists and apps
(again) Applications detecting radars by means of maps and user reporting are fully legal
Also note that most speed enforcement is placed in out-of-town areas on roads where it is easy to drive fast and speed limit is lower than maximum (opposed to e.g. "town roads with low visibility in which pedestrians or bikers are very frequent")
Average-speed cameras are in service at very well known locations with huge signals showing them. Apps and devices can help track the mean speed. It is debated on how "legal" is to pass a car very fast and then slow down back to the limit. It is a fact that one takes no sanctions for this misbehaviour, as it is documented by police and Highway company websites
The increased speed limit of 150km/h has never been applied so far even where Ministry of Infrastructures approved for increasing. I.e. no more than 130
Because of the plenties of fixed cameras, police doesn't usually pull you over even if you are blatantly driving slightly over the limit. I said slightly
Despite the huge amount of fixed video cameras, only those approved for the purpose can be used for traffic enforcement. This means that no one is allowed to take a look at a random camera showing the road and sanctioning a vehicle with lights off or other minor non-safety and non-speed related offenses
The same can't be said for reckless driving, for which the police is very severe on the contrary. You will spend a lot of time with the officers if you start zig-zagging without indicators
In some highway areas, locals and well-educated European foreigners drive exactly like German Autobahns: limitless. It is considered unsafe to obstacle them, e.g. by disattending their insisting flashing. Only authority allowed to punish them is the police
DUI is a severe criminal offence. On the bare suspect that you might be under effects of alcohol or drugs, police is allowed to have you tested. Consequences for positive include jail
In case of crash with harm to people, all drivers are required to be tested for alcohol and drugs
Alcohol tolerance is 0.5. I have seen that Italian alcohol is often underestimated from foreigners, so please keep this into account. I can't ask anyone not to drink if they are allowed a small quantity
Fail to rescue is another serious criminal offense that may cost jail sentence. In case of collision with harm to people, you must either stop and rescue or (yes you can) call emergency at 112 -providing all relevant information- and escape. For example, you may need to go to hospital on your own or feel unsafe at the crash site. Failure to provide help to the injured (omissione di soccorso) is also very criminalized by the society in Italy
Tailgating is officially considered an offense but is unfortunately too much practiced by motorists. Police does their best
In case of crash, it is considered that both drivers share 50% of liability, unless one of the two proves the other 100% guilty
Police is also generally more severe to foreigners than locals. They tend to pull over a lot of foreign cars for routine checks. One of the several reasons is that most insurance/tax checks are done automatically by ANPR cameras on board and on the road. Driving a rental car puts you on the "local" status from this point of view.

Another thing to look carefully about police, and is quite unknown to the locals as well, is that while the officers are very kind and helpful to people needing help (they won't give you indications but are well trained for rescue and will call any help needed in an emergency), they are severe as well with anyone. Italian traffic code is so complicated that it is nearly impossible not to commit any violation, including trivial. There is a huge list of trivial violations that most drivers commit every day but gets unnoticed. If you are not cooperative enough with the officers (of course they cannot exceed their powers, e.g. inspecting your phone or demanding your mail password in a duty check) they have the power to work their best to let you go with a couple of traffic tickets on your head. And they are good at that. That is: you have your rights, they have their duties.

Examples of trivial violations (I may provide source on demand):

Engine on with vehicle stopping, e.g. to keep clima on
Tyre pressure unbalanced
Worn out tyres
Transportation of goods on the passengers' seats without proper holding
Headlights off out of town
Absence of mandatory safety gear

Driving out of the rightmost lane

Are there areas of London the police are afraid to enter?


From The Daily Mail (online):

The US presidential contender caused worldwide consternation yesterday after a string of incendiary remarks about Muslims, including in Britain, and said: 'We have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that police are afraid for their own lives.'
Which areas in London exactly are no-go areas for the police?


In December 2015 the British Government, the Mayor of London, and the Metropolitan [London] Police all rejected the claim. Downing Street said the claims were "totally inaccurate", the then Mayor of London Boris Johnson said they were "utter nonsense", and the Met said:

"We would not normally dignify such comments with a response, however, on this occasion we think it’s important to state to Londoners that Mr Trump could not be more wrong... Any candidate for the presidential election in the United States of America is welcome to receive a briefing from the Met police on the reality of policing London."
The Prime Minister's spokesperson said:

"The Prime Minister completely disagrees with the comments made by Donald Trump, which are divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong,"
Boris Johnson went on to say:

"As a city where more than 300 languages are spoken, London has a proud history of tolerance and diversity and to suggest there are areas where police officers cannot go because of radicalisation is simply ridiculous... Crime has been falling steadily both in London and in New York - the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump"
Also worth noting that at the time the government, prime minister, and mayor of London were all Conservative. So their reaction can hardly be dismissed as leftist conspiracy or such.

If there's any parts of the country where the police can't go owing to radicalisation, it's likely only some parts of Northern Ireland. See The Troubles.

Friday, 28 July 2017

Why is UK passport control so much stricter than in the Schengen area?


Flying into the Schengen area is extremely easy - you take out your passport, the immigration guy quickly checks if you haven't exceeded the 90/180 limit (and sometimes not even that), asks you about the purpose of your visit, and stamps you in. Even the immigration booths are designed with a glass wall between the traveler and the immigration officer, so the landing interview is mostly focused on the presented documents.

In comparison the UK border officers require you to fill out a landing card in advance and often proceed to ask numerous intrusive questions about your financial history and the purpose of your stay. It is quite common to end up in secondary questioning for failing to give conclusive answers and this very community recommends carrying the same documents you would carry for a visa interview.

What is the reason behind this? Are the Schengen area officials so careless about who is coming in?


There is a downside to increasingly time-consuming and intrusive checks. You need to pay the border guards who perform them and/or contend with time loss at the border waiting. If you follow public discourse, you might sometimes get the feeling that the time and comfort of non-citizens is a negligible quantity but that's very short-sighted. It's not good for tourism, not good for business, annoying airport operators and airlines, and apart from the receiving country's own benefit calculation it's simply wasteful, humanely and economically. All this for what? Catching a few thousand future overstayers a year?

Another point to consider is how effective these checks really are. They certainly do create a lot of misery, from the simple discomfort of long lines and hostile questioning to the distress of detention and “removal at port” (i.e. the police forcing someone onto a plane, which is technically different from a “deportation”, decided by a judge, and other types of forced removals). When you hear about specific cases, it's easy to explain them away with admonitions like “you should have done this” or “you should have done that” but how many of these people would have posed a genuine problem if they had been let through? How many people do get through who ideally shouldn't have? And how much discomfort can you inflict on people who have no intention of breaking the law just because they are non-citizens?

An ID and database check, together with a simple filter like providing a straight answer to a basic question should catch most “low-hanging fruits”. I have no way to tell exactly how fast but it stands to reason that the return on additional checks then decreases very fast, as does their accuracy. This added value ought to be measured against the costs I mentioned earlier and there are others, more effective uses of public money. Schengen countries are for example focusing on generalising visa biometrics and database checks, which are still not 100% systematic as far as I know.

In general, the UK does not seem much better than its peers at preventing illegal immigration. Perhaps it would be even worse off without these intrusive checks (which would be an explanation in itself) but that's not obvious. Without evidence of that, the checks are just theatre, inflicting discomfort for the purpose of demonstrating strength, not an effective way to tell “good” visitors from “bad”.

Incidentally, for better or for worse, the Schengen area isn't that open either. Most people in the world still require a visa, a rather intrusive process fraught with difficulties (even if it is also easier and cheaper than the UK in this respect) and your experience at the border depends a lot on your appearance (including race, wealth, and how confident you look). If you do not require a visa and look like a tourist or better yet, a businessman, it might feel very easy but that's because you already went through a number of implicit filters and there is little point in bothering you further.

Anybody else, including women and children travelling alone, backpackers from other developed countries and citizens from developing countries occasionally face additional scrutiny. You can easily find countless stories of people turned away even though they had a visa and even a few scare stories of citizens detained over concerns regarding their passport or some such. And according to Eurostat, in a regular year, countries like France, Poland, and Hungary, register a similar number of entry refusals as the UK, not to mention Spain, which reports many more. From that perspective, the policy in the Schengen area isn't particularly “careless”.

In fact most somewhat open countries are similar to the Schengen area in this respect, with only a handful of exceptions. The question therefore becomes why does the UK in particular go above and beyond? One factor is surely the decades of controversies around immigration and the fact that some politicians basically built their careers on being tough on this topic. It doesn't matter that immigration is often a scapegoat used to hide other policy failures or that the fact earlier restrictions did not make the problem go away should logically give one pause, you always hear calls to be even more restrictive. Another factor, already mentioned, is that the UK is already very attractive for people willing to stay illegally as it is and understandably concerned about the problem being even bigger without aggressive enforcement to deter newcomers.

Finally, one very specific factor is that Britain is an island, with very few entry ports so that focusing enforcement on the border feels like a reasonable proposition, in a way that isn't true in countries with long and complex land borders. This insular mentality is also on display in other subtler ways. Consider for example, the link provided by GayotFow in a comment: A conservative MP basically concedes that the commonly repeated line about people flocking to the UK to abuse purportedly generous benefits is a lie and that EU citizens basically come to work on a par with British citizens, in a way that's broadly beneficial to the economy and the country.

But that, in itself, is unacceptable to this MP, his party, and a large part of the British public. Being allowed to reside under restrictive conditions (namely having work) becomes an “entitlement” and these people must urgently be downgraded to the status of workers from “Bangladesh, Australia, America, Canada or India”, who have to prove they are exceptionally skilled, pay hundreds if not thousands of pounds in visa fees, and generally be made to feel that coming to the UK is a privilege. From this perspective, intrusive checks (and Brexit) are an end in themselves, quite apart from any cost/benefit consideration.

Why does China maintain the One Country, Two Systems principle?


A brief explanation from Wiki:

"One country, two systems" is a constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the reunification of China during the early 1980s. He suggested that there would be only one China, but distinct Chinese regions such as Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own capitalist economic and political systems, while the rest of China uses the socialist system. Under the principle, each of the two regions could continue to have its own political system, legal, economic and financial affairs, including external relations with foreign countries.
China certainly has the military power to completely ignore whatever protests might arise in Hong Kong or Macao, just like they've successfully handled the protests in 2014. Likewise they have enough global clout to completely ignore the opinion of Western states, just like they do with Tibet.

So what's the point of maintaining the system? Couldn't they just announce that China is now fully unified? I assume there's a benefit to China in maintaining the current system, I just don't fully see what it is.


In addition to the technical details provided by other answers, it is also because of the fact that Deng's habit of mind was scientific as the English mind was scientific in the 17th century: when orthodox theories began to lose authority, Deng resorted to experience. Deng's policy towards Hong Kong and Macao was his cat theory and feeling-the-stones theory in practice.

As opposed to Mao's nation-wide great-leap-forward style, Deng's economic reform was gradual and piece meal, starting from experiments in tiny SEZs like Shenzhen. Then by carefully studying the pros and cons of these SEZs, he slowly learned what to do and what not to do.

Reforms in the realm of opinions were very promising in the 80s. Virtually no one was persecuted for their opinions, and many outlandish and the most precious books were published during this period. Then came these student movements demanding democracy and freedom. Everything the student said sounded right except that there was no empirical evidence. Hating GLF from the bottom of his gut, Deng decide that the best thing for the students to do was to go back to classrooms. The rest of the story is well-known. History has shown that Deng was right: the collapse of the Soviet Union provided a counter example to the students' democratic ideal, which was as appealing in theory as it was disastrous in practice. The mentality that embraced democracy in 1989 was no different from the ones that embraced communism in 1921 and the ones that embarked on GLF in 1958. Many Russians today still romanticise revolutions and shock therapies, not realizing that they are just GLFs in different forms.

One consequence of the student movements was that the government learned a lesson and tightened up ideological control. If the students in 1989 had foreseen the consequences of their actions, they would have realized the irony: instead of gaining what they demanded, they lost what they already had - the freedom of opinions.

Of course, if Deng had argued like I do in this post, there would have been no need of tanks. If Deng, or any government official, had told the the students that no one knew how democracy would work out among Chinese speakers and it was better to do some experiments first, the students would have come back to their senses. Unfortunately, Deng was not sophisticated; his gut feeling was right, but he did not know how to express it. The best theory Deng could put forth was crossing the river by feeling the stones - a phase that was virtually uncouth to a college student. As a matter of fact, none of the communist revolutionists was sophisticated, otherwise they wouldn't do the revolution thing in the first place; China's ruling elites up until early 1990s consisted entirely of highly intelligent and well-experienced red necks. They still held theories in high regards, but their experiences told them something was not right; in the mist of this anguish, they were tortured by a keen sense of inferiority in front of these well-educated adversaries. Therefore, argue with my tanks!

Hong kong and Macao were basically Deng's SEZs in the realm of government. No matter what Deng's long term plan was, it was not his habit to make sudden changes, be it China going Hong Kong's way or Hong Kong reverting back to China's - this is the essence of crossing the river by feeling the stones - every policy must be field tested somewhere before it is adopted. And, if both are prosperous, there is no need to change either - this is the essence of Deng's cat theory.

Another curious fact is that, in 1989, no one in the ruling party could argue like I do today. I doubt anyone in China today can offer an argument as simple as mine.

When the dust settles, a question that naturally follows is this: how many of these bystanders cheer-leading China's democracy really wished China well?

Why is the ACA individual mandate the most lambasted part of the ACA when the ACA couldn't be funded without it?


First -- Please, if there is a challenge to the frame of the question, go that route. I don't know what I'm talking about here -- So I'll try not to take corrections to heart.

The ACA is a divisive and complex piece of legislation with several components. In the talk of repeal politicians have promised to preserve parts of it and eliminate others. There are a few that are widely praised (Letting children stay on their parents insurance longer, Forcing coverage for preexisting conditions), a few that are somewhat accepted (Minimum care standards, caps on what the elderly can be forced to pay) and a few that are direded by almost all opponents of the ACA, such as the individual mandate.

My question is, I've always been under the impression without the individual mandate generally healthy individuals who wouldn't otherwise purchase insurance as on rolls, the things like the preexisting coverage and allowing children to stay on their parents insurance longer couldn't be realistically funded. Getting rid of the individual mandate without getting rid of the some of the other regulations just doesn't add up.

How can politicians promise to keep the ups and ditch the downs?


The individual mandate requires people to act responsibly at a cost to their wallet/budget. There is a general theme that irresponsible selfishness = freedom that gets pandered to more and more in a day an age when people can select news/information that conforms to their pre-existing opinions.

So, people look at the very short term "I'm not sick at this instant, why should I have to pay for health insurance?"

Most criticisms are based on pandering to fundamental misunderstandings, or having misunderstandings on the following points -

It is more costly to society as a whole, and more catastrophic to individuals who do get hit by health care needs and try to deal with those situations without insurance, which results in personal bankruptcies and the costs being passed along to others.
The "me" perspective of "why should I have to pay for others?" conveniently ignores the fact that if something does happen, the decision to not be insured means others will have to pay for you (defaulting on all debt, except student loans, not just medical, when bankruptcy is filed, costs passed onto others in point #1)
While health insurance covers normal, expected and preventative costs, the purpose of it is for the unexpected and higher ticket possibilities which the premium payer is protected against.
No one chooses to get sick or terminally ill. Everyone dies eventually. This means that everyone, against their will, will need health care in their lives, unless they are completely healthy and die by some instantaneous event. This makes the idea of "opting" for health care as some kind of a consumer choice a fallacy.
Universal insurance coverage is not a short-term proposition. You are buying in for your lifetime. When you are younger/healthier, you are probably paying in more than you are taking out. When you get older or more ill, you get out more than you are currently paying in. The idea is that it balances, plus you are paying for that catastrophic protection.
People who look at it as "I'm not currently using x, y, z" or "I probably won't ever use x, y, or z" do not understand the concept of insurance, which is pooled risk/use.

Much of the opposition was because Obama proposed it, and is reflexive by nature. The idea of the Individual Mandate as a necessary component of a health care overhaul was proposed by the conservative Heritage Institute in response to the Clintons' failed proposals of the 90s, and was successfully implemented by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. Clearly, there is nothing about the Individual Mandate that fundamentally conflicts with GOP or conservative values, overall, as an idea. A big part of the opposition, in addition to the basic ignorance, is "shooting the messenger" mentality.

Hacked Credit Card With High Balance

 4427919900389097 479 12/20 Visa Maria McCabe Chadds Ford 19317 United States

 --- 4426441407147960 06/20 978 ZULEY MARIN VE-1085014 11800 NW 101st Rd : medley N/A 33198 UNITED STATES - APPROVED !!-----

 Eduardo Costa 376790639623000 9533 2020/1 Itapecerica da Serra 06851-110 Rua Pedra Mole 398 (11) 3391-8768 Mexico APPROVED

 4661601200030093 08/21 828 Tifani Sim 2784 Newport Hwy DKI JAKARTA state 10220

 4465421090969336|05|2019|491|UNITED STATES|Kelly|Mcfadzean|206 rt 36|Highlands||07732

 --- 4465420592775167|04|2021|308|UNITED STATES|Daniel|Stoll|115 Lazo Ct.|Saint Augustine||32095|9045406393|||Mozilla5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome58.0.3029.110 Safari537.36||| - APPROVED !!-----

 5449285896387979|05|2019|767|UNITED STATES|JOSEPH H HOCHULSKI|159 S OGDEN ST, 2|BUFFALO|14206|

 4465420330149865|09|2018|181|UNITED STATES|Brett|Bowman|35 Hidden rock road|Taylorsville||28681 Pass Qwer1122=

Thursday, 27 July 2017

Why was PM of Pakistan received by the the Deputy Mayor of Beijing in the first OBOR Forum in 2017?

This is Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif being welcomed on his arrival at the Beijing Airport. Li Shixiang, the Deputy Mayor of Beijing, was there to welcome the PM of Pakistan.

He has come to take part in the first OBOR Forum conference, as Pakistan is the most important component of the OBOR plan (host of $62bn worth of projects). He was also traveling with his wife, Ministers of Defence, Finance, Foreign Relations (de facto), Railway, Planning along with all the chief ministers of his country.

The Chinese didn’t even think it fit to send the Mayor of their city to welcome the Prime Minister of Pakistan, traveling with the most high powered national representation possible.

What was the explanation from Chinese side?


Lack of exactness is the culture of China, when you live in this country long enough, you know it very well. If everything can have an official explanation, that is the Parliament of United Kingdom or the Congress of the USA, but not China.

But you know there were also leaders of other countries attending this great event, and some of the countries are larger and more powerful than Pakistan. When you feel it was warm enough for a host, actually you did not know what kind of officials were asked to do the reception for those big powers. Perhaps they were even lower than the vice mayor of Beijing. I myself as an outsider was once organized to receive Malaysian Prime Minister in Nanning,and our head of receiving team was no more than a section chief of Foreign Ministry of China

sponsored link

Why might the Russians want Trump to win?


The American CIA reportedly believes that the Russians, in the form of the Russian government and possibly private actors, went to significant length (psych / cyber ops) to help Trump win.

Having said that, could you provide a clear explanation of exactly why they would want that?

The only explanation I've seen in the news is some vague reference to it having something to do with past business relationships with Russian billionaires. Is that complete/accurate?

Is it just gratitude for past business deals or would they expect Trump to benefit them in the future as well (or is there some other element)? It couldn't have anything to do with his wife, could it? If not for the business relationships, I would've expected the Russians to prefer a Democrat, as Republicans are (in my perception) typically viewed as more aggressive towards rivals and less co-operative in international affairs.


For Vladimir Putin, the election of Donald Trump may undermine the NATO military alliance. Trump has said that the U.S. would not automatically defend its treaty allies and that we might withdraw forces from Europe and Asia. This weakening of the U.S. commitment to NATO comes at a time when the military alliance is seeking to deter Russia from threatening to annex the Baltic nations, as it did the Crimea.

–New York Daily News
Trump will consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia

Putin has rational motives for wanting Trump to win: Trump champions many foreign policies that Putin supports. Trump's most shocking, pro-Kremlin proposal is to "look into" recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. President Barack Obama and nearly every member of Congress — Republican and Democrat — have rejected that idea vigorously. Only Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea. Naturally, Putin would love to see the United States join that list.

–Chicago Tribune
Trump's views on the dangers of ISIS that some feel are overblown help justify Russian military actions within Syria

Trump likely doesn’t know it, but his (absurd) idea that ISIS could mount a coup against the U.S. government from within the country is once again a gift to Putin. The Russian leader has been justifying his decision to send Russian forces to Syria on the basis that it protects Russian citizens from future terrorist attacks and the Russian government from destabilization.