It's either a common enough mistake, or an ironic/comedic twist. Either way, it's in common usage but rarely if ever formally taught like Hancock is (as an anecdote to entertain the history class).
No, this is how politics works. You vote for (or fund) the person you think will best represent you. Since Republicans are typically censorship-happy, art industries typically favor Democrats. So Obama got lots from the MAFIAA.
When they win but don't actually best represent you, you switch to backing someone else next time.
I signed the petition, just to see what the response would be, or even if they would respond. But there is nothing to see here. I'm more concerned about Newt suggesting Palin has a part in his administration to get the support of her followers, which is a felony. The law doesn't say whose support is important, hers or other voters. But I have only seen a blip about that.
Information travels much faster these days, it was a lot easier to get away with corruption in the 19th century.
And Somalia is not a great example of Libertarian ideal. There is a certain culture and history there, and most importantly Somalia does not represent the idea of "your rights stop where mine start" which is pretty important, as I understand it.
Not supporting the libs, I just figure you'd want to make a good argument against it instead of repeating irrelevant sound bites. I think some libs have actually given it as an example, but you should take it up with those individuals instead of the whole party. Especially when no one has mentioned it - that's a straw man argument.
Of course it is. Due to Citizens United, and money being free speech, all Dodd was doing was exercising his right to speak his mind. He did not offer money specifically to pass PIPA/SOPA, he said he would not make a campaign contribution if the White House opposed it.
Which, in all honesty, is the same kind of thing I say all the time. I'm not voting for someone if they do this, I'm not supporting them if that... it will likely come down to a big nothing.
Nice try. At most the White House (Executive branch) can say "We think so too." The people who write laws, and exclude Congress, are in Congress (the Legislative Branch).
At most he could try to veto it, but guess who overrides a veto? Congress.
It's very similar to something I have been doing for years. I have a dedicated shortcut app that sends messages to certain applications, and it's roughly generic but very specific in what it looks for. It is also similar to things like alternate shell interfaces to MP3 players, which have been around a long time. Litestep is a good example, they had piles of MP3 interfaces. Your media keyboard may do a similar though limited thing, depending on the driver.
It is a very simple concept - in Windows terms since I know it best. Enumerate all of the windows and their children, list the ones which are interactive (control classes). If it has help text (mouseover popups) that could be one search term, and the text itself ("Play") could be another. With MP3 players, it's usually the help text. Maybe include the app name or main window title. Sure you would get junk in the list, but one or two letters into the search you'd be close to what you want. And since it remembers like FireFox's awesome bar, the junk fades away.
So it's just adding the Windows 7 start menu idea of type-to-find to the existing push-button remote control types. Yeah, we've been doing similar things for years, this just puts it all together in one place. If I had the time I would flesh out my shortcut app, but I have no use for this kind of interface. So I leave the documentation above. Maybe it will serve as prior art for a Windows-based patent, if Unity doesn't do it exactly this way.
No, the video shows these people have no idea what SPYW is all about.
Google is not searching for the most relevant results. It is searching for the most relevant results, plus your world. If your world includes Jamie Oliver's FaceBook page, that will come back in the "your world" results, not search results.
And, Google doesn't have links to *your* facebook, myspace, etc. Just the public information. So that's not your world, it's just a social search. They say this is how the algorithm works. Take the "your world" results, and do a search on each one.
This is actually just enhancing the your world search to show outside links relevant to your world. Which is a neat feature. But "Your World" is supposed to be your world, not outside stuff relevant to you.
This is just the logical extension of the search, and a neat idea. But it still depends on Google having access to your G+ information, and still does not access your FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, or whatever else. So it doesn't fix anything
All this arguing proves that it's murky legal territory, and it's up to the judge to decide. We have had decisions go both ways, and it will continue being murky until it gets to the supreme court.
All of this self-righteous philosophizing does nothing to change this. If the judge writes a decision on why this was allowed, the decision can be attacked through appeal. But only after the evidence is revealed.
No, because you don't have a point. Your lawyer should be asking for an independent third party to be involved, and to also inspect the contents of the computer and/or memory to ensure this sort of thing won't happen. Judges tend to accomodate reasonable requests like this as long as you don't sound like a paranoid twit. At least according to the few cases I've read up on where it mattered. Your judge may be an impertinent penishead, which gives you grounds to appeal.
You're not going to get the appeal, because you're basically complaining that they might have stolen your passphrase, which you don't have to re-use once the trial is over. But if they get you to decrypt it, they are going to get every bit of data they can, so there is no use for the passphrase anyway. So now once again you don't have a point.
Fundamentally I believe this is very wrong. But I can't find any legal argument to oppose it. Just a bunch of philosophy and argument. But that's not how the justice system works.
You're not interpreting anything, you're giving them cold, raw data. If you have an appointment book in the encrypted blob, and they ask you to interpret it, then your argument would stand.
If you're being asked to decrypt something, there's already enough evidence for a warrant and you're being accused of something fairly specific. If they have circumstantial evidence that you have illegal photos, or spy documents, or are running a mortgage scam, and the FBI has raided your house, you have already turned over a lot of info just by having it in your house. Was that self-incrimination? You have the right to be secure in your property and person, until a warrant removes that right. But having the evidence where it can be found is not self-incrimination, it's criminal stupidity.
Note in the article, the judge is allowed to ask you to decrypt the drive. Being unable to do so for whatever reason means the evidence doesn't see the light of day. That would be similar to executing a search warrant and not finding the pistol. Not that it's the right pistol, but they need to check it. They know you had it, but they can't find it. Here, they are looking right at the hidden partition, and they know you have something in there. Maybe not the right information, but they need to check it.
You don't have to incriminate yourself by making a statement. But you do end up turning over whatever property they think they need. Even if that's e-mails from your ISP, posts from Facebook or Slashdot. Not just physical property. The encrypted hard drive is the lone case where they can't ask a third party to turn over your password-protected information. They have to ask you, and you can refuse and be thrown in jail for contempt just as with refusing any other order.
Tangible property - recovered in the raid Intangible property - subpoenaed Judge's order - refuse and be held in contempt
Go for it. And by the time you get enough investment backing to be able to compete, you will have investors screaming for profits. And your rates will go up. And your prices will be roughly equal to what's already out there, because that's what the market will bear.
No, that's not a good question, unless everyone is asking it. Text messaging rides on the backs of empty space in the network ping, costing nothing to the provider. But rates have gone up from 10 cents to now 40 cents.
People will pay whatever they value the service to be.
I have fought this for as long as I could - I didn't buy a cell phone, I didn't have cable or satellite TV, I didn't pay money for anything I thought was overpriced. But everyone around me did. $500/mo apartment with $140 tv + internet package, and complaining about not having money.
I told people where they were spending ridiculous piles of cash, they didn't care, they wanted the service. I tried to educate them, honestly I did.
And your argument that choice is limited doesn't really hold up - Sprint has been offering "truly unlimited" plans. This is basic capitalism. No one cares what it costs to make something, only what they are willing to pay for it. And very few people like me are truly outraged anough to actually not purchase something, they grumble and fork over the cash.
Be careful, that's the way it starts. As culture evolves, one group after another becomes the target, and you don't undo the prejudice against previous targets, you just add to it.
That's why it's called a slippery slope. First, it's hard to get back up it. Second, once you get moving it's hard to slow down.
We have laws in place for these things, they should be applied in this case. That's what civilized people do.
Choose your own adventure style games will never reach the emotional depth of even a crappy effects-laden junk film. It is very difficult to maintain even a single consistent story line. When decisions fork the story, the character development has to match what happened before it.
There are only a few successful examples of this type of change. In Scrubs, the angry doctor and the nice chief are actually the doctor who cares too much and the bureaucratic dick. At some point, they change, but you look back and remember all of the foreshadowing and it all makes sense.
The story branches available would have to be consistent with the character. Maybe you don't discover that the doctor yells at you because he cares. But there is a lot of work in setting up that character, and for you to not discover that richness would be a major blow to both your experience and the crafters of the story.
I don't know how else to explain it - there is too much involved in foreshadoing and development and interactions to even come close to what people expect in movies and television. People will be bored because they just couldn't care about the characters. Yes, that happens in movies too, but it's an exception, not the rule.
My entertainment falls into two categories based on the pizza test. Assume that you can't stand a greasy remote / controller / anything for the duration of this test.
Can you eat a deep dish pizza and still be entertained? You can substitute wings and popcorn as well.
I will turn on the TV if I'm eating something that is hard to put down and do other things. Sometimes I'll put on a movie. Video games are not on while the pizza is out, shuffle play music is not an option if it might play that one song I hate on that one album I have in there.
A concept album where the tracks go together, like Dark Side of the Moon (which is why Pink Floyd did not want to sell individual MP3s for the longest time) is passive, pizza entertainment, or Shostakovich symphony.
Slashdot is not pizza entertainment, because I have to tell people the many ways in which they have not thought their agrument through, even if I agree with them. News aggregators are not passive because it takes maybe 30 seconds to get the idea of a story, and then either scroll or click.
Movies have been around since ever, in the form of plays or similar theater, and that form of entertainment will never go away. The only change you can make is the presentation - plays to silent movies to talkies to Michael Bay-riffic explosive barf-fests.
Because of people like you. A law isn't something you buy, and thinking so confuses the issue. A politician is something you invest in, something you cultivate. I have said you don't buy laws, you buy politicians. But that is an oversimplification.
MAFIAA recently said to Obama not to count on Hollywood money next time. That should explain how it works. You pay money up front for someone to get elected, hopefully someone who shares your opinions. When votes come up, politicians look to see who funded them. NOT to see who to vote for, but to see whose support they need to win the next election.
Every vote, every bill, every decision, is about not alienating the people whose support you count on for the next cycle. Politics is a long game, and individuals usually only thing about things per-issue. Because they don't understand how politics works.
Until people start taking a look at candidates, how they voted, what they actually did, long term, this won't change. The people only want someone to say the right things, like Gingrich does, not do the right things. As long as he says what they want to hear, he can screw them again and again.
Or the simple answer - Hollywood usually votes Democrat because Republicans have tried to censor profanity and nudity. So Democrats and California politicians do what Hollywood wants, for continued funding. The politician is bought, the laws don't have to be.
You're out of your mind. Floral industray charches a hefty markup, usually for the value-add of an artful arrangement. People pay way more than the flower is worth just for that reason, and even if you get just roses they are ridiculously expensive. That's how the floral industry gets by. Hefty markup, value-add, and people don't want to maintain a garden in case someone has to be hospitalized.
There is no underlying easily made product in music, it is all artistic value-add. Even the terrible, formulaic songs.
I've always followed the hobo test. If you can find a homeless guy and get him to do your work, it's menial. A hobo could plant seeds and water a flower in exchange for somewhere to sleep or a bit of food now and then. He's not going to be a session musician, write a backing arrangement, mix, or any of the other things involved in music. And film involves all of that plus way more. Even on a shoestring budget with a handful of people.
Flowers cost the same as music because they are way overpriced, not because music is cheap. You are paying a convenience fee for not doing something yourself, not buying something you probably could not have created at all.
You could create a song, but not that song, it is statistically impossible to do so (but if you want to argue yes it is very slightly possible, and as many times as you post songs that are like other songs I'll show you the difference between them so don't bother).
Probably not. You accepted the amount. You had the options of turning them down, asking for more, or accepting. You can sue but this argument is what the defense will succeed by using.
If you already knew or suspected this, and have some proof of that, and were trying to get a bigger salary out of two or more of these companies, you might have a leg to stand on. The tone of your post suggests no.
Good companies to work for, bad companies to try to leave. If your motivation is to get the biggest dollar amount you can, or be poached for a giant raise, you probably don't care about the working conditions. On the other hand, if you want to like where you work, these companies make it easier than most.
It's a lot better than I expected. And Billy Mays was a spokesperson for a large business which has incredible markups and added shipping fees, so you can cut out the middleman and give twice the profit to a different company.
Half-way there already. We know the conditions at Wal-Mart, so auto-fill those for every item on the shelf there. Then you just need information on the foreign suppliers, since you can assume the domestic ones are minimum wage, no health insurance. And many of those foreign stories are already out there. Since there is a manufacturer code in the UPC, you only need to fill information for a small subset of items, and carry over the info to the items with the same mfr code.
So Clarke's point is that the CIA covered up facts in order to get 2 operatives inside Al Qaeda? And that CIA accidentally got a double agent instead? Then in August CIA told the FBI about it?
"They" apparently is CIA and "it" apparently is covering their asses. According to the video you posted. Did you have another point?
I have no idea what your point is. A huge a complicated elevator system requires a lot of maintenance. I don't know if 80 people is normal for 198 elevators, but considering they travel a huge distance and there were over a hundred floors, it probably makes sense.
The same people were on duty because that's where they work. Their job since 1993 and before, was to maintain these elevators. Why wouldn't many of the same people be there?
Are you suggesting that elevator mechanics were somehow up to no good, despite them having daily things to do for their job which they have been at without incident since at least 1993?
Slashdot Mirror
It's either a common enough mistake, or an ironic/comedic twist. Either way, it's in common usage but rarely if ever formally taught like Hancock is (as an anecdote to entertain the history class).
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/10/messages/147.html
No, this is how politics works. You vote for (or fund) the person you think will best represent you. Since Republicans are typically censorship-happy, art industries typically favor Democrats. So Obama got lots from the MAFIAA.
When they win but don't actually best represent you, you switch to backing someone else next time.
I signed the petition, just to see what the response would be, or even if they would respond. But there is nothing to see here. I'm more concerned about Newt suggesting Palin has a part in his administration to get the support of her followers, which is a felony. The law doesn't say whose support is important, hers or other voters. But I have only seen a blip about that.
Information travels much faster these days, it was a lot easier to get away with corruption in the 19th century.
And Somalia is not a great example of Libertarian ideal. There is a certain culture and history there, and most importantly Somalia does not represent the idea of "your rights stop where mine start" which is pretty important, as I understand it.
Not supporting the libs, I just figure you'd want to make a good argument against it instead of repeating irrelevant sound bites. I think some libs have actually given it as an example, but you should take it up with those individuals instead of the whole party. Especially when no one has mentioned it - that's a straw man argument.
Of course it is. Due to Citizens United, and money being free speech, all Dodd was doing was exercising his right to speak his mind. He did not offer money specifically to pass PIPA/SOPA, he said he would not make a campaign contribution if the White House opposed it.
Which, in all honesty, is the same kind of thing I say all the time. I'm not voting for someone if they do this, I'm not supporting them if that... it will likely come down to a big nothing.
So indeed, fear not. All is well, citizen.
Nice try. At most the White House (Executive branch) can say "We think so too." The people who write laws, and exclude Congress, are in Congress (the Legislative Branch).
At most he could try to veto it, but guess who overrides a veto? Congress.
It's very similar to something I have been doing for years. I have a dedicated shortcut app that sends messages to certain applications, and it's roughly generic but very specific in what it looks for. It is also similar to things like alternate shell interfaces to MP3 players, which have been around a long time. Litestep is a good example, they had piles of MP3 interfaces. Your media keyboard may do a similar though limited thing, depending on the driver.
It is a very simple concept - in Windows terms since I know it best. Enumerate all of the windows and their children, list the ones which are interactive (control classes). If it has help text (mouseover popups) that could be one search term, and the text itself ("Play") could be another. With MP3 players, it's usually the help text. Maybe include the app name or main window title. Sure you would get junk in the list, but one or two letters into the search you'd be close to what you want. And since it remembers like FireFox's awesome bar, the junk fades away.
So it's just adding the Windows 7 start menu idea of type-to-find to the existing push-button remote control types. Yeah, we've been doing similar things for years, this just puts it all together in one place. If I had the time I would flesh out my shortcut app, but I have no use for this kind of interface. So I leave the documentation above. Maybe it will serve as prior art for a Windows-based patent, if Unity doesn't do it exactly this way.
No, the video shows these people have no idea what SPYW is all about.
Google is not searching for the most relevant results. It is searching for the most relevant results, plus your world. If your world includes Jamie Oliver's FaceBook page, that will come back in the "your world" results, not search results.
And, Google doesn't have links to *your* facebook, myspace, etc. Just the public information. So that's not your world, it's just a social search. They say this is how the algorithm works. Take the "your world" results, and do a search on each one.
This is actually just enhancing the your world search to show outside links relevant to your world. Which is a neat feature. But "Your World" is supposed to be your world, not outside stuff relevant to you.
This is just the logical extension of the search, and a neat idea. But it still depends on Google having access to your G+ information, and still does not access your FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, or whatever else. So it doesn't fix anything
All this arguing proves that it's murky legal territory, and it's up to the judge to decide. We have had decisions go both ways, and it will continue being murky until it gets to the supreme court.
All of this self-righteous philosophizing does nothing to change this. If the judge writes a decision on why this was allowed, the decision can be attacked through appeal. But only after the evidence is revealed.
No, because you don't have a point. Your lawyer should be asking for an independent third party to be involved, and to also inspect the contents of the computer and/or memory to ensure this sort of thing won't happen. Judges tend to accomodate reasonable requests like this as long as you don't sound like a paranoid twit. At least according to the few cases I've read up on where it mattered. Your judge may be an impertinent penishead, which gives you grounds to appeal.
You're not going to get the appeal, because you're basically complaining that they might have stolen your passphrase, which you don't have to re-use once the trial is over. But if they get you to decrypt it, they are going to get every bit of data they can, so there is no use for the passphrase anyway. So now once again you don't have a point.
Fundamentally I believe this is very wrong. But I can't find any legal argument to oppose it. Just a bunch of philosophy and argument. But that's not how the justice system works.
You're not interpreting anything, you're giving them cold, raw data. If you have an appointment book in the encrypted blob, and they ask you to interpret it, then your argument would stand.
If you're being asked to decrypt something, there's already enough evidence for a warrant and you're being accused of something fairly specific. If they have circumstantial evidence that you have illegal photos, or spy documents, or are running a mortgage scam, and the FBI has raided your house, you have already turned over a lot of info just by having it in your house. Was that self-incrimination? You have the right to be secure in your property and person, until a warrant removes that right. But having the evidence where it can be found is not self-incrimination, it's criminal stupidity.
Note in the article, the judge is allowed to ask you to decrypt the drive. Being unable to do so for whatever reason means the evidence doesn't see the light of day. That would be similar to executing a search warrant and not finding the pistol. Not that it's the right pistol, but they need to check it. They know you had it, but they can't find it. Here, they are looking right at the hidden partition, and they know you have something in there. Maybe not the right information, but they need to check it.
You don't have to incriminate yourself by making a statement. But you do end up turning over whatever property they think they need. Even if that's e-mails from your ISP, posts from Facebook or Slashdot. Not just physical property. The encrypted hard drive is the lone case where they can't ask a third party to turn over your password-protected information. They have to ask you, and you can refuse and be thrown in jail for contempt just as with refusing any other order.
Tangible property - recovered in the raid
Intangible property - subpoenaed
Judge's order - refuse and be held in contempt
I see no basis to call this unconstitutional.
Go for it. And by the time you get enough investment backing to be able to compete, you will have investors screaming for profits. And your rates will go up. And your prices will be roughly equal to what's already out there, because that's what the market will bear.
No, that's not a good question, unless everyone is asking it. Text messaging rides on the backs of empty space in the network ping, costing nothing to the provider. But rates have gone up from 10 cents to now 40 cents.
People will pay whatever they value the service to be.
I have fought this for as long as I could - I didn't buy a cell phone, I didn't have cable or satellite TV, I didn't pay money for anything I thought was overpriced. But everyone around me did. $500/mo apartment with $140 tv + internet package, and complaining about not having money.
I told people where they were spending ridiculous piles of cash, they didn't care, they wanted the service. I tried to educate them, honestly I did.
And your argument that choice is limited doesn't really hold up - Sprint has been offering "truly unlimited" plans. This is basic capitalism. No one cares what it costs to make something, only what they are willing to pay for it. And very few people like me are truly outraged anough to actually not purchase something, they grumble and fork over the cash.
No, this is. I'm not posting a link to 4chan, so this will have to do.
The government had told the high court that it could even affix GPS devices on the vehicles of all members of the Supreme Court, without a warrant.
With a threat like that, they had to check the Executive powers. I suspect this was the unanimous part of the decision.
Be careful, that's the way it starts. As culture evolves, one group after another becomes the target, and you don't undo the prejudice against previous targets, you just add to it.
That's why it's called a slippery slope. First, it's hard to get back up it. Second, once you get moving it's hard to slow down.
We have laws in place for these things, they should be applied in this case. That's what civilized people do.
Choose your own adventure style games will never reach the emotional depth of even a crappy effects-laden junk film. It is very difficult to maintain even a single consistent story line. When decisions fork the story, the character development has to match what happened before it.
There are only a few successful examples of this type of change. In Scrubs, the angry doctor and the nice chief are actually the doctor who cares too much and the bureaucratic dick. At some point, they change, but you look back and remember all of the foreshadowing and it all makes sense.
The story branches available would have to be consistent with the character. Maybe you don't discover that the doctor yells at you because he cares. But there is a lot of work in setting up that character, and for you to not discover that richness would be a major blow to both your experience and the crafters of the story.
I don't know how else to explain it - there is too much involved in foreshadoing and development and interactions to even come close to what people expect in movies and television. People will be bored because they just couldn't care about the characters. Yes, that happens in movies too, but it's an exception, not the rule.
My entertainment falls into two categories based on the pizza test. Assume that you can't stand a greasy remote / controller / anything for the duration of this test.
Can you eat a deep dish pizza and still be entertained? You can substitute wings and popcorn as well.
I will turn on the TV if I'm eating something that is hard to put down and do other things. Sometimes I'll put on a movie. Video games are not on while the pizza is out, shuffle play music is not an option if it might play that one song I hate on that one album I have in there.
A concept album where the tracks go together, like Dark Side of the Moon (which is why Pink Floyd did not want to sell individual MP3s for the longest time) is passive, pizza entertainment, or Shostakovich symphony.
Slashdot is not pizza entertainment, because I have to tell people the many ways in which they have not thought their agrument through, even if I agree with them. News aggregators are not passive because it takes maybe 30 seconds to get the idea of a story, and then either scroll or click.
Movies have been around since ever, in the form of plays or similar theater, and that form of entertainment will never go away. The only change you can make is the presentation - plays to silent movies to talkies to Michael Bay-riffic explosive barf-fests.
Because of people like you. A law isn't something you buy, and thinking so confuses the issue. A politician is something you invest in, something you cultivate. I have said you don't buy laws, you buy politicians. But that is an oversimplification.
MAFIAA recently said to Obama not to count on Hollywood money next time. That should explain how it works. You pay money up front for someone to get elected, hopefully someone who shares your opinions. When votes come up, politicians look to see who funded them. NOT to see who to vote for, but to see whose support they need to win the next election.
Every vote, every bill, every decision, is about not alienating the people whose support you count on for the next cycle. Politics is a long game, and individuals usually only thing about things per-issue. Because they don't understand how politics works.
Until people start taking a look at candidates, how they voted, what they actually did, long term, this won't change. The people only want someone to say the right things, like Gingrich does, not do the right things. As long as he says what they want to hear, he can screw them again and again.
Or the simple answer - Hollywood usually votes Democrat because Republicans have tried to censor profanity and nudity. So Democrats and California politicians do what Hollywood wants, for continued funding. The politician is bought, the laws don't have to be.
You're out of your mind. Floral industray charches a hefty markup, usually for the value-add of an artful arrangement. People pay way more than the flower is worth just for that reason, and even if you get just roses they are ridiculously expensive. That's how the floral industry gets by. Hefty markup, value-add, and people don't want to maintain a garden in case someone has to be hospitalized.
There is no underlying easily made product in music, it is all artistic value-add. Even the terrible, formulaic songs.
I've always followed the hobo test. If you can find a homeless guy and get him to do your work, it's menial. A hobo could plant seeds and water a flower in exchange for somewhere to sleep or a bit of food now and then. He's not going to be a session musician, write a backing arrangement, mix, or any of the other things involved in music. And film involves all of that plus way more. Even on a shoestring budget with a handful of people.
Flowers cost the same as music because they are way overpriced, not because music is cheap. You are paying a convenience fee for not doing something yourself, not buying something you probably could not have created at all.
You could create a song, but not that song, it is statistically impossible to do so (but if you want to argue yes it is very slightly possible, and as many times as you post songs that are like other songs I'll show you the difference between them so don't bother).
Probably not. You accepted the amount. You had the options of turning them down, asking for more, or accepting. You can sue but this argument is what the defense will succeed by using.
If you already knew or suspected this, and have some proof of that, and were trying to get a bigger salary out of two or more of these companies, you might have a leg to stand on. The tone of your post suggests no.
Good companies to work for, bad companies to try to leave. If your motivation is to get the biggest dollar amount you can, or be poached for a giant raise, you probably don't care about the working conditions. On the other hand, if you want to like where you work, these companies make it easier than most.
Here's the benefits page (you can go to Walmart.com and click on Careers, store, and Benefits)
http://walmartstores.com/Careers/7750.aspx
It's a lot better than I expected. And Billy Mays was a spokesperson for a large business which has incredible markups and added shipping fees, so you can cut out the middleman and give twice the profit to a different company.
Half-way there already. We know the conditions at Wal-Mart, so auto-fill those for every item on the shelf there. Then you just need information on the foreign suppliers, since you can assume the domestic ones are minimum wage, no health insurance. And many of those foreign stories are already out there. Since there is a manufacturer code in the UPC, you only need to fill information for a small subset of items, and carry over the info to the items with the same mfr code.
http://www.upcdatabase.com/
It's a lot easier than you think, but the last 10% of cleaning it up will be the hard work.
So Clarke's point is that the CIA covered up facts in order to get 2 operatives inside Al Qaeda? And that CIA accidentally got a double agent instead? Then in August CIA told the FBI about it?
"They" apparently is CIA and "it" apparently is covering their asses. According to the video you posted. Did you have another point?
I have no idea what your point is. A huge a complicated elevator system requires a lot of maintenance. I don't know if 80 people is normal for 198 elevators, but considering they travel a huge distance and there were over a hundred floors, it probably makes sense.
The same people were on duty because that's where they work. Their job since 1993 and before, was to maintain these elevators. Why wouldn't many of the same people be there?
Are you suggesting that elevator mechanics were somehow up to no good, despite them having daily things to do for their job which they have been at without incident since at least 1993?