|
American consumers have no reason to care about chip and pin because we're not held liable for fraudulent transactions for either debit or credit. The worst that will happen in the very rare case of credit card fraud is the mild inconvenience of waiting for the bank to mail you a new card.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Or the bank could gently caress you over like banks do, or in the case of the debit card put a hold on all the money in your account until the hold either passes or fails after a few days. Did I mention that happened to me once? It happened to me once. Some guy tried to use my debit card number to buy eight hundred loving dollars worth of condoms. The transaction didn't go through, but it still put a hold on $800 in my account. I called the bank and "there is nothing we can do", I contacted the condom company (they were a pretty cool small business actually) and they said that it hadn't actually registered in their system at all. But i was still unable to use $800 for a few days which sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Years a country was last subordinate to another:
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Shouldn't Turkey either be none or some year in the 1920s when Allied troops finally all left (not sure if it was 1920 or 21 off the top of my head). The Ottoman Empire /= Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
So nobody occupied the UK in 1707?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
And Bulgaria was not a Soviet satelite until 1991?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
It seems to think the Czech Republic was the successor state to Czechoslovakia, and Slovakia was under its heel or something
Golbez fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:So nobody occupied the UK in 1707? No outside country, no. England and Scotland were seperate kingdoms and a country can't exactly be subordinate to itself. When they joined together they formed the United Kindom of Great Britain. The Kingdoms of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Ireland united in 1801 and the country became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 most of the Irish counties seceded and in 1927 the name was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's a legal grey area because the three countries merged through the union of Kingdoms, not through outright annexation. One could make the point that as Wales was actually annexed by the Kingdom of England in 1542 then they are still subservient to the Kingdom of England, who in turn have been united into the Kingdom of Great Britain who in turn are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Having the 1707 on the UK is stupid as the UK has never been subordinate to another country, only its predecessor states have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
That doesn't make any sense at all. Going by that logic, the Mongols didn't occupy Turkey in the 13th century because Turkey didn't exist. And yet somehow the map claims Turkey as-is was under Mongol control but it doesn't do the same for the UK? EDIT: For the map to be internally consistent, England would have fallen under Norman control in 1066 and the Normans never really left. 
Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That doesn't make any sense at all. Going by that logic, the Mongols didn't occupy Turkey in the 13th century because Turkey didn't exist. And yet somehow the map claims Turkey as-is was under Mongol control but it doesn't do the same for the UK? Same for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Shouldn't Turkey either be none or some year in the 1920s when Allied troops finally all left (not sure if it was 1920 or 21 off the top of my head). The Ottoman Empire /= Turkey. Maybe. Allied troops weren't there for long at all before Ataturk did his thing. Not sure if that should count or not. And were Syria and Jordan really subordinate to Egypt under Nasser? I believe they were considered to be part of the same country, but I thought in practice power was still held locally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
That is truly a politically loaded map, showing Greenland in grey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
That map makes no sense, somehow Germany remained subjugated until 1991, but Poland stopped being subjugated in 1945? Pretty much every date on there can be contested on grounds of absolutely inconsistently applied criteria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Maybe. Allied troops weren't there for long at all before Ataturk did his thing. Not sure if that should count or not. Syria and Egypt formed the United Arab Republic and it was anything but fair. Power was decentralised but Nasser was in charge. Officially though they were one country; however when they split Egypt continued as the UAR and Syria reverted back to their own country (and membership of the UN as Syria) so the map actually seems accurate on that one. Jordan and Iraq formed the Arab Federation which like the UK was a union of two Kingdoms. When it was dissolved both countries reverted back to their old names and UN memberships without a successor state, so the map is accurate in having the Arab Federation over Jordan. If the US wasn't on Iraq they should be Arab Federation as well, and if Egypt was included they should be UAR. It's got some problems but it's an interesting map!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
The United Arab Republic was such a drat weird thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That map makes no sense, somehow Germany remained subjugated until 1991, but Poland stopped being subjugated in 1945? Pretty much every date on there can be contested on grounds of absolutely inconsistently applied criteria. Berlin at least was controlled directly by the Allied Powers until 1990 and was never formally a part of West Germany. Poland however was a sovereign state. West Berlin was politically free but legally occupied, Poland was legally free but politically occupied. However if thats the reason for putting 1991 on all of Germany its stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The United Arab Republic was such a drat weird thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Arab_Republics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Islamic_Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_States :cryingnasser: Farecoal fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Also Portugal apparently was subjugated by France?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:EDIT: For the map to be internally consistent, England would have fallen under Norman control in 1066 and the Normans never really left. Yeah England should be 1066, Scotland 1707.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Camoes posted:Also Portugal apparently was subjugated by France? Oui http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Shouldn't England be 1603 for that map to make any sense? Since that was when it came under personal union under a Scottish Monarch, if personal unions doesn't count Sweden's date shouldn't be 1523 since Sweden was in a personal union with Denmark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Shouldn't England be 1603 for that map to make any sense? Since that was when it came under personal union under a Scottish Monarch, if personal unions doesn't count Sweden's date shouldn't be 1523 since Sweden was in a personal union with Denmark. The current United Kingdom didn't exist till 1707 is the reasoning
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
But France only invaded and destroyed a bunch of stuff, they never stayed or controlled anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
You Go Slavia!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Camoes posted:But France only invaded and destroyed a bunch of stuff, they never stayed or controlled anything. They invaded Lisbon and kicked out the royal family and had armies stationed there and created a puppet government, that counts for me, efficacy or totality of military control notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Camoes posted:But France only invaded and destroyed a bunch of stuff, they never stayed or controlled anything. Occupied from October/November 1807 to June 1808 at least (Portugese uprisings), with British intervention in August 1808 kicking off the Peninsular War proper and expelling French forces within a matter of months. The Portugese Court fled Lisbon in November 1807 for Brazil, where interestingly they made Brazil an equal partner in a Portugese/Brazillian union (the only time, to my knowledge, this has happened with a country and its colony) and ran that "country" from Rio De Janeiro. Once British forces expelled the French administrators trying to run Portugal (something the Portugese civil servants refused to let them do; France collected such little tax from Portugal they couldn't even pay their own occupying army, let alone send anything back to France) the Portugese took over with instructions from Rio. Rio De Janeiro actually remained capital of Portugal until Brazils independence in 1822... maybe we should change Portugal to Brazil, 1822 on the map!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:interestingly they made Brazil an equal partner in a Portugese/Brazillian union (the only time, to my knowledge, this has happened with a country and its colony) Salazar tried to use that rhetoric during the Colonial Wars, arguing that Portugal's colonies were provinces on an equal standing with metropolitan Portugal, and thus the UN's decolonisation drive shouldn't apply to them. The Africans didn't quite buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Salazar tried to use that rhetoric during the Colonial Wars, arguing that Portugal's colonies were provinces on an equal standing with metropolitan Portugal, and thus the UN's decolonisation drive shouldn't apply to them. The Africans didn't quite buy it.  I'm sure this has been posted before but whatever it's still hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
What's that wedged between Guinea and Mozambique?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Golbez posted:What's that wedged between Guinea and Mozambique? Looks like it's [East] Timor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That doesn't make any sense at all. Going by that logic, the Mongols didn't occupy Turkey in the 13th century because Turkey didn't exist. And yet somehow the map claims Turkey as-is was under Mongol control but it doesn't do the same for the UK? The UK was never subservient to Normandy, just the Normans. By their logic it ought to fall under the Roman Empire though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:The Portugese Court fled Lisbon in November 1807 for Brazil, where interestingly they made Brazil an equal partner in a Portugese/Brazillian union (the only time, to my knowledge, this has happened with a country and its colony) and ran that "country" from Rio De Janeiro. The French directly incorporated Algeria as part of Metropolitan France rather than as a colony, and later did the same for French Guiana etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
If the UK is the successor state to the Kingdom of England, it should say 1688. Dutch people straight up invaded that island with an army and made themselves rulers. That's not a , that's what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
The entire history of Great Britain is basically foreigners doing whatever the gently caress they want with it and then settling in to be the next bitches of whoever comes in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Were the first Hanoverian kings of the UK still technically vassals of the HRE? Or was that after it's dissolution already?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Were the first Hanoverian kings of the UK still technically vassals of the HRE? Or was that after it's dissolution already?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Vassals in their capacity as ruler of Hannover, not vassals as King of (the United Kingdom of) Great Britain and Ireland. Much like the Danish king was a vassal of the HRE in his capacity as ruler of Schleswig-Holstein, but not as King of Denmark. In 1701 the ruler of Brandenburg-Prussia considered himself so rad that he wanted to be elevated to king, and argued to the Holy Roman Emperor that since Prussia was outside of the HRE, he could be recognized as king there. Thus, from 1701 to 1772, Prussian kings were called the "king in Prussia" just to get around HRE laws with a technicality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:If the UK is the successor state to the Kingdom of England, it should say 1688. Dutch people straight up invaded that island with an army and made themselves rulers. That's not a Eh, given that the invasion came at the invitation of prominent English parliamentarians and led to the Stadtholder upping sticks and moving to London, and treaties which subordinated the Dutch fleet to the English one regardless of rank in the event of any allied joint actions, I'm not sure you could say that the Glorious Revolution subordinated England to the Netherlands, indeed you might even say it ended up the other way around in the long run.. And it wasn't really that the Dutch invaded and made themselves (plural) rulers, the Dutch invaded and the English parliament made a Dutch guy king (and only alongside his English wife, and even then only because the Dutch guy with the army was threatening to go home and it was the only way to stop him from leaving), but in the process true rulership of the country passed from the Monarch to Parliament at this point, which was mostly crewed by folks from England, though a small number of the King's Dutch friends got English peerages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The UK was never subservient to Normandy, just the Normans. By their logic it ought to fall under the Roman Empire though. not all of great britain was conquered by the romans 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
True, but neither all of Turkey nor all of Russia were ever entirely under control of the Mongols either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:10
|
|