http://forum.lowyat.net/ Sat, 01 Aug 2026 21:31:21 +0800 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5572723 [youtube]DWis32hiMz4[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Sat, 01 Aug 2026 18:55:37 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5572671 [youtube]GzL29HcIJOk[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Sat, 01 Aug 2026 07:22:44 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5572643 [youtube]vXmoPcNpiEo[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Fri, 31 Jul 2026 18:45:43 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5572053 [youtube]SqRZXVW-IT0[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Sat, 25 Jul 2026 20:43:12 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5571792 药才铺。Local Chinese traditional shops. Do you notice that almost all of them don&#39;t have expiry date on their medicine? It is posible that you have consumed decades old medicine lol.<br />Some medicine that has grown mold is cleaned, put under the sun and sold as normal.<br />Hope you guys are not allergic to mold lol samftrmd Kopitiam Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:34:22 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5571773 [youtube]nC1TrOU2we8[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:45:15 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5571641 Title already says tldr, your own fault.<br /><br />Today apply leave to go HUKM checkup with my father. Just usual maintenance medicine. Follow up checking is next year May lol<br />8am leave house until 2pm only settle.<br />While waiting, I ask Copilot some sci-fi questions.<br /><br /><img src='https://copilot.microsoft.com/th/id/BCO.d42fa196-760e-416d-bce8-a48729b6f876.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' /><br /><br />Hypothetically who has jurisdiction on a midflight ballistic missile? Origin of launcher? Owner of the national borderline the missile is in? Intended target?<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no single clear jurisdiction over a midflight ballistic missile — responsibility is fragmented. The launching state is primarily accountable under international law, but the airspace owner (state whose territory the missile crosses) and the targeted state also have legal standing to act or claim violations. Ultimately, jurisdiction is shaped by treaties, UN Security Council resolutions, and customary international law rather than a single authority.<br /><br />Key Jurisdictional Dimensions<br />Origin of launcher<br /><br />The state that fires the missile bears primary responsibility under international law.<br /><br />Launching a missile across borders without consent is considered a violation of sovereignty and potentially an act of aggression under the UN Charter.<br /><br />Example: North Korea’s missile tests over Japan triggered international condemnation and sanctions.<br /><br />Airspace sovereignty<br /><br />States have full sovereignty over the airspace above their territory (Chicago Convention, 1944).<br /><br />If a missile crosses into another country’s airspace, that country can claim jurisdiction and protest the violation.<br /><br />This principle was central in disputes like the MH17 case, where Ukraine’s airspace was violated and ICAO ruled Russia accountable.<br /><br />Intended target<br /><br />The targeted state has jurisdiction to respond militarily (self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter) or legally (seeking reparations, sanctions).<br /><br />If civilians or neutral states are harmed, international humanitarian law applies, and multiple jurisdictions may overlap.<br /><br />International law frameworks<br /><br />The Hague Code of Conduct (HCoC) is the only universal instrument regulating ballistic missile proliferation, but it relies on voluntary compliance.<br /><br />The UN Security Council can impose sanctions or authorize collective action against violators.<br /><br />Customary law and treaties like the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) provide norms but lack binding enforcement.<br /><br /><br /><br />Risks and Challenges<br />Ambiguity: No binding global treaty specifically governs ballistic missiles; enforcement is patchy.<br /><br />Overlap: Multiple states can claim jurisdiction simultaneously (launcher, airspace, target).<br /><br />Accountability gaps: Powerful states may evade sanctions or deny responsibility, as seen in MH17.<br /><br />In short, jurisdiction over a midflight ballistic missile is shared but contested — the launching state is primarily liable, but airspace owners and targets also have standing. Enforcement depends on international cooperation, treaties, and political will. Would you like me to break down real-world case studies (like North Korea’s overflights or MH17) to show how these jurisdictional claims play out in practice?<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br /><br />In a sci-fi setting, if I have the capability to intercept an in-flight missile, as a private citizen. What legal problems will I face from a foreign nation that launched it and from local government?<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In a sci‑fi scenario where a private citizen intercepts a ballistic missile midflight, the legal fallout would be immense — both from the foreign nation that launched it and from the local government where the interception occurred. Let’s break it down:<br /><br />🚀 From the Launching Nation<br />Violation of sovereignty: The launching state could claim you interfered with their military assets, even if the launch itself was unlawful.<br /><br />Acts of aggression: They might frame your interception as hostile action, potentially escalating into diplomatic or military retaliation.<br /><br />Compensation claims: If the missile was destroyed over their territory or intended target, they could demand reparations under international law.<br /><br />🏛️ From Your Local Government<br />Unauthorized military action: Civilian interception of weapons would almost certainly be illegal. Only state militaries are authorized to engage in missile defense.<br /><br />Weapons control violations: Possessing or deploying technology capable of intercepting ballistic missiles would breach arms control and national security laws.<br /><br />Public safety liability: If debris caused damage or casualties, you could face criminal charges or civil lawsuits.<br /><br />Espionage or treason: Authorities might suspect you of acting on behalf of another state or rogue group, leading to severe prosecution.<br /><br />⚖️ International Law Context<br />Self-defense rights: States can intercept missiles under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but private citizens have no such standing.<br /><br />Technology restrictions: International regimes like the MTCR tightly regulate missile interception technology; private ownership would be prohibited.<br /><br />Humanitarian law: If interception prevented civilian harm, you might argue moral justification — but legally, states would still prosecute.<br /><br />🧩 Sci‑Fi Twist<br />In a futuristic setting, this tension could drive your plot:<br /><br />A citizen hero who saves lives but is branded a criminal.<br /><br />A foreign power demanding extradition for “sabotage.”<br /><br />A local government torn between prosecuting you and secretly recruiting you for defense.<br /><br />So in short: you’d be hailed as a savior by civilians, but legally treated as a rogue actor by both your own government and the missile’s origin state. That clash between moral heroism and legal condemnation is fertile ground for sci‑fi storytelling.<br /><br />Would you like me to sketch out possible courtroom scenarios or diplomatic fallout arcs to show how such a case could unfold in your narrative?<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br /><br />Can&#39;t I argue that the missile would kill me if I did not intercept it? Can&#39;t I save my own life?<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You could certainly argue self‑defense — but legally, it’s not nearly as straightforward as “I saved my own life.” International and domestic law treat missile interception as a state-level military act, not something a private citizen can claim as personal defense. Here’s how the tension plays out:<br /><br />🛡️ Local Government Perspective<br />Self-defense claim: You’d argue necessity — the missile would have killed you, so you acted to preserve life.<br /><br />Legal limits: Domestic law usually restricts self-defense to immediate threats you can personally counter (e.g., an attacker with a weapon). Intercepting a ballistic missile requires military-grade systems, which are illegal for civilians to possess.<br /><br />National security breach: Your government would likely prosecute you for unauthorized use of advanced weapons, even if lives were saved, because you bypassed state authority.<br /><br />🌍 Foreign Nation Perspective<br />Aggression accusation: The launching state could claim you attacked their military asset. Even if their missile was unlawful, they might frame your interception as hostile action.<br /><br />Diplomatic fallout: They could demand extradition, reparations, or retaliate politically. In sci‑fi terms, you’d be branded a rogue actor interfering in state conflict.<br /><br />⚖️ International Law Context<br />Article 51 UN Charter: States have the right to self-defense against armed attack. Individuals do not — your government would need to authorize interception.<br /><br />Necessity doctrine: You could argue “necessity” — preventing imminent harm. But courts would likely reject it because missile defense is not recognized as an individual right.<br /><br />Humanitarian justification: Morally, you saved lives. Legally, you acted outside recognized frameworks, so you’d still face prosecution.<br /><br />🎭 Sci‑Fi Narrative Angle<br />This is perfect story fuel:<br /><br />You’re a civilian hero who prevented mass death, but governments treat you as a criminal.<br /><br />The foreign nation calls you a terrorist; your own government calls you reckless.<br /><br />Civilians hail you as a savior, creating a clash between moral legitimacy and legal condemnation.<br /><br />So yes, you can argue you saved your own life — but in law, that defense would almost certainly fail. In sci‑fi, though, that tension between personal survival instinct and state monopoly on force is exactly what makes your character compelling.<br /><br />Would you like me to sketch out how a trial scene could unfold — with prosecutors hammering the illegality while the defense leans on necessity and moral duty?<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br /><br />Challenges of the local government face if they choose to prosecute<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Challenge of the local government face if they choose to prosecute<br />If your local government chose to prosecute you for intercepting a missile, they would face a series of legal, political, and moral challenges that make the case extremely complex. Here’s how those challenges stack up:<br /><br />⚖️ Legal Challenges<br />Self-defense argument: You could argue necessity — the missile posed an imminent threat to your life. Courts would struggle to dismiss this outright, especially if evidence showed you prevented mass casualties.<br /><br />Unprecedented case law: No precedent exists for a private citizen intercepting a ballistic missile. Judges would be forced to interpret laws designed for small-scale self-defense in a context involving strategic weapons.<br /><br />Technology legality: Prosecutors must prove possession of missile-defense tech was unlawful. But if you used improvised or novel sci‑fi tech, existing statutes may not clearly apply.<br /><br />🏛️ Political Challenges<br />Public opinion: If civilians believe you saved lives, prosecuting you risks backlash. The government could be seen as punishing a hero.<br /><br />International pressure: The launching nation might demand prosecution, but your government would have to balance foreign relations against domestic outrage.<br /><br />State monopoly on force: Governments jealously guard military authority. Allowing your act to stand unpunished undermines their monopoly on defense, but prosecuting you risks appearing unjust.<br /><br />🌍 Diplomatic Challenges<br />Foreign retaliation: The launching nation could accuse your government of complicity if they don’t prosecute.<br /><br />Extradition demands: If the foreign state demands you be handed over, your government faces a sovereignty dilemma — protect its citizen or appease another power.<br /><br />UN involvement: The case could escalate to international forums, forcing your government to justify its stance under global scrutiny.<br /><br />🎭 Narrative Tension in Sci‑Fi<br />This creates fertile ground for storytelling:<br /><br />A government torn between prosecuting you to uphold law and protecting you as a national hero.<br /><br />A foreign power demanding justice, branding you a terrorist.<br /><br />A courtroom drama where necessity, morality, and sovereignty collide.<br /><br />In short, prosecuting you would put the local government in a no‑win situation: legally shaky, politically explosive, and diplomatically dangerous. That tension is exactly what makes your scenario compelling.<br /><br />Would you like me to sketch out a trial strategy map showing how prosecution and defense arguments would clash point by point?<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br /><br />How could the local government even contemplating foreign relation and prosecution demand from a nation that launched a missile into the local government&#39;s border when this is an obvious act of war.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exactly — you’ve hit on the paradox. If a foreign nation launches a missile into your local government’s borders, that is by definition an act of war under international law. Yet governments often still contemplate prosecution or diplomatic negotiation because of the way states balance law, sovereignty, and politics. Here’s why:<br /><br />⚖️ Legal Reality<br />Act of aggression: Under the UN Charter, firing a missile into another state’s territory is an armed attack. The local government has the right to self-defense.<br /><br />Sovereignty violation: Crossing borders with a missile is a clear breach of sovereignty. Normally, this overrides any foreign demand for prosecution.<br /><br />🏛️ Why Prosecution Is Still Considered<br />Rule of law optics: Governments may prosecute you to show they maintain control over advanced weapons use, even in wartime. It’s about demonstrating monopoly on force.<br /><br />Diplomatic signaling: By prosecuting, they can signal to the foreign nation: “We didn’t authorize this citizen’s act, so don’t escalate against us.”<br /><br />Avoiding escalation: If they refuse to prosecute, the launching nation could claim the government condoned your interception, risking escalation into full-scale war.<br /><br />🌍 Political Dilemma<br />Domestic outrage: Citizens would see prosecution as absurd — punishing someone who saved lives during an attack.<br /><br />International pressure: Foreign states may demand prosecution to frame you as a rogue actor, but the local government risks appearing weak if they comply.<br /><br />UN involvement: The case could be dragged into the UN Security Council, forcing the government to justify why it prosecuted a citizen instead of focusing on the aggressor.<br /><br />🎭 Sci‑Fi Narrative Angle<br />This contradiction is gold for storytelling:<br /><br />A government caught between war and law, prosecuting a hero to avoid escalation.<br /><br />A citizen savior branded a criminal, while the real aggressor escapes accountability.<br /><br />A trial staged for diplomacy, where the courtroom becomes a proxy battlefield between nations.<br /><br />So yes — logically, prosecuting you after a missile strike is absurd. But politically, governments sometimes choose absurdity to avoid escalation, preserve diplomatic channels, or maintain control. That tension between obvious act of war and legal theater is exactly the kind of conflict that drives gripping sci‑fi plots.<br /><br />Would you like me to sketch out how a government crisis cabinet might debate this — weighing war, diplomacy, and public opinion in real time?<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br /><br />Likely reaction of local opposition politic parties.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Local opposition parties would almost certainly seize on such a prosecution as a political weapon. Their reactions would vary depending on ideology, but several likely themes emerge:<br /><br />🏛️ Opposition Party Reactions<br />Condemnation of prosecution  <br />They would argue it is absurd to prosecute a citizen who acted to save lives during an act of war. This line appeals to public outrage and paints the ruling government as disconnected from reality.<br /><br />Framing government weakness  <br />Opposition parties could claim the government is bending to foreign pressure instead of defending national sovereignty. They would portray prosecution as evidence of weakness or cowardice.<br /><br />Championing the citizen hero  <br />By elevating you as a “people’s defender,” opposition parties gain populist momentum. They would argue the government should honor, not punish, someone who protected the nation.<br /><br />Demanding accountability  <br />Instead of prosecuting you, they would demand the government focus on holding the launching nation accountable — through military readiness, diplomatic protest, or UN action.<br /><br />Exploiting public anger  <br />Opposition leaders would likely organize rallies, speeches, or media campaigns to amplify public resentment, positioning themselves as defenders of national pride.<br /><br />🎭 Narrative Implications in Sci‑Fi<br />This creates a layered political drama:<br /><br />The government prosecutes to maintain control and avoid escalation.<br /><br />The opposition rallies behind you, branding you a hero and using the case to weaken the ruling party.<br /><br />The public is caught between outrage and fear, fueling instability.<br /><br />In short, opposition parties would almost certainly side with you — not out of pure principle, but because it’s a powerful way to attack the government’s legitimacy. That clash between state authority and popular heroism could drive your sci‑fi narrative into political intrigue.<br /><br />Would you like me to sketch out how different ideological factions (nationalists, liberals, populists) might each spin the case differently for maximum political gain?<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> samftrmd Kopitiam Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:56:21 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5571113 [attachmentid=11529394]<br /><br />Called me in Mandarin says I have unread ducumemt regarding my acceptance into US citizen lol samftrmd Kopitiam Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:26:58 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570987 [youtube]VD17dxWFCyQ[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:52:21 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570956 [youtube]B4M2slu_z-c[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:10:16 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570810 What the hell???<br />[youtube]6krLel_OaMI[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:58:10 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570566 [youtube]yOYyrG5LROY[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Sat, 11 Jul 2026 11:48:27 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570480 [youtube]B6BI8GU1Ccg[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:19:26 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570331 We are all selfish bunch. All cibai chouhei drivers.<br />[attachmentid=11529216]<br />[attachmentid=11529217]<br /><br />Plenty of parking space but choose to park at roadside because lazy to walk 5 more steps. 5 fucking more steps. Not 5 min walk, 5 fucking steps. Turning a 2 lane, 2 directional drive way into a single lane. samftrmd Kopitiam Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:25:17 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5570109 [attachmentid=11529119]<br />Our train not rain resistant? samftrmd Kopitiam Tue, 07 Jul 2026 09:11:31 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5569902 [youtube]_G0Z1w8mxBQ[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Sun, 05 Jul 2026 07:15:07 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5569901 [youtube]czRoZhsVWCM[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Sun, 05 Jul 2026 07:12:22 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5569664 [youtube]CqXnF7W0iF4[/youtube] samftrmd Kopitiam Thu, 02 Jul 2026 20:38:38 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5569560 There is a mistake in the mailing address I noticed. a 6 was turned into 8, and B was also turned into an 8 in the address. From the webpage, it gives a link to download a 26A form, <a href='https://ptg.selangor.gov.my' target='_blank'>https://ptg.selangor.gov.my</a> that pops up a qr code that links to a satisfactory questionnaire instead...<br />I emailed them but not holding my breath. samftrmd Serious Kopitiam Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:48:48 +0800 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/5569449 Selangor no need pay tax anymore? <br /><a href='https://etanah.selangor.gov.my/etanah-awam' target='_blank'>https://etanah.selangor.gov.my/etanah-awam</a> got error 404 liau. samftrmd Kopitiam Wed, 01 Jul 2026 06:44:06 +0800