Timothy McVeigh was part of a radical militia group, so that would be the "army". However, I would say that you don't need to be a part of an army to engage in warfighting. You can do that all by yourself. McVeigh was engaging in fighting a war against certain agencies in the government.
I disagree. Terrorism is a warfighting tactic. Swatting is not about warfare. I think purpose and intention matter here. The exact same act can be terrorism in one context but not in another.
But I realize that the term "terrorism" has already been misused so much that I'm fighting a losing battle on this point. It's almost at the point where we can just lump it in with other boogyman words like "communism", "hackers", etc.: devoid of any substantive meaning other than to be frightening to people.
I'm am 100% in favor of getting rid of most of the SWAT teams as well as reducing the amount of armament regular cops get to use, but that's a long-haul goal.
In the meantime, I would be happy if cops simply stopped sending SWAT teams as first responders. Send normal police first so they can assess the situation. Let them call SWAT after they've made that determination.
I don't understand why this isn't already the universal policy of the police. It would save lives of both the police and nonpolice, it would save a lot of money, and it would help the police improve their PR problems.
Technically, lying is legal unless you're under oath. There are some corner cases (for example, if you lie to a cop who is investigating a crime, you're "obstructing justice" -- the lying wasn't illegal, but the effect of the lying was.)
However, I've long argued that public officials should be considered "under oath" whenever they are performing their duties (perhaps with an exception for certain things like cops working under cover).
Have you had so many problems that this is a real concern?
In any case, I don't think the situation is as bad as you fear. In essence, nothing changes in terms of how you get help: you contact the company whose service is failing. The only difference is that you're being serviced by multiple companies.
So, if your internet service goes out, you call your ISP. If your internet service is working, but your Netflix goes out, you contact Netflix. And so forth.
Personally, I just assume that customer support is always awful regardless of the company, and avoid calling them unless I'm desperate anyway, so I can count the number of support calls I've made in my life on both hands. The last time was with Netflix. The Netflix viewer kept telling me the service wasn't reachable. I confirmed I had internet access, checked the various "is it down" sites to see if there was a widespread Netflix outage (there wasn't), then followed the support procedure on the Netflix site. Their tech support had me working again in about five minutes.
I don't think that's the biggest flaw (although it's a very big flaw). The biggest flaw is how so many channels mangle the shows with screen bugs, overlays, and editing for time. The second biggest is the inordinant amount of advertising.
Re: That infographic is incorrect, even discounting piracy...
I'm more of an "option E" person. I'm unwilling to subscribe to more than one video service, and if a particular show I'm interested in never hits that service, I'm good with that. If it ever does, I'll watch it then.
In short, there is no TV show or movie that is so compelling that I'm willing to go out of my way or incur additional expense just to see it. I have plenty of other things to watch/hear/do.
Why do option B-D include subscribing to Netlifx, Hulu, and Amazon Prime? That seems like overkill to me. Personally, I am completely satisfied just with Netflix, but I understand that others want a different selection. But in that case, why not go with only Hulu or only Amazon?
I agree. I would rather live in a dangerous but free world than a safe but unfree one.
Also, that's just rhetoric, since we don't have that choice before us. Our choice is between free + dangerous and unfree + dangerous. The only difference between the two is who the danger is coming from.
Twenty years ago I would have been excited to have a la carte pricing for cable channels, but I've long since stopped watching cable TV at all so I couldn't care less anymore. I wouldn't start watching cable TV again even if it were free.