I'll not pay for a third, and will elect to visit whatever the replacement for TPB is instead and stream from there. You mean TPB? Every time they kill it, it comes back. I swear, it's some kind of phoenix always rising from its own ashes...
2) *someone* would make a front-end that re-aggregated all the services into a unified UI and would be attacked by the media cartel instantly.
Attacks for that are seriously doubtful. "Guardians of the Galaxy is only available if you purchase the Disney Streaming service. [Purchase now?]" As long as you still have to pay their service fees to get their shows, they won't care. Aggregate services are fine, competing services are not.
It is exactly what's going on here. The ability to call a voicemail platform system and leave a voicemail for any subscriber contained within it, without ringing their cell phone, has existed for years. This is not new technology wherein the telemarketer is "glitching" your phone.
Well, the multiple calls a week I've received from these companies that are trying but failing to go straight to voicemail says that either it doesn't work on all platforms, or they're using a different method than the one you're familiar with.
With the current method I've seen numbers often dial my phone 5+ times in under 3 seconds (sometimes causing it to ring, sometimes not), so I'd say they are not going through some standard straight-to-voicemail method, but are indeed trying to glitch the system with rapid fire dial-and-hangups. My guess is that they're using the rapid redials to cause the system to think your phone is already on a call and drop a subsequent call to voicemail.
Speed redial is quick to do and annoys the next CC agent.
What? You put me on your black list for doing that?
Well, mission accomplished.
I did once get a company to stop calling by calling them back repeatedly over a 2 hour timeframe. Every time I called, I pretended to be a different person, and ran the gamut from pissed off, to crying uncontrollably, to just telling the fucker on the other end over and over "make the world a better place. Kill yourself." (The latter I wouldn't do to a normal telemarketer, but I was pissed at these guys because it was a verified scam from overseas trying to steal your credit cards.)
They never actually blocked me that I know of (I just stopped calling after a few hours when I had to head to work), but I never did get another call from them.
In that case, if I had a T1 line, I'd be doing this 24/7 to some of these fuckers.
If they're calling us illegally, are we OK in getting a few thousand of us DDoSing their phone numbers with recordings of obscene phone calls? If so, I'd be totally in.
If they have the right to fill up my voicemail with message I don't want, I should have the same right to continually call them, tying up their phone line. Sounds fair, right?
You absolutely can do that. The problem is that it doesn't do shit. If you call back the number, you get a pre-recorded message. All you're really doing is wasting your own time. Even if you do get their direct line and call in, it's a bank of minimum-wage call center idiots who just hang up on you when they figure out you don't want to buy anything.
That's not what is going on here. This is telemarketers attempting to glitch your cell phones into not ringing, and then leaving voicemail for you.
One big problem is that this doesn't always work. Every single day I get at least 1-2 one-ring-then-hang-up calls, often 3-4 of them within 5 seconds of each other, followed by a voicemail. And those voicemail notifiers still chime, still distract me from what I'm doing, and it still takes time to listen to the voicemail before I determine that it's not really something for me.
And that brings up the reason this is often even more annoying and inconvenient than normal telemarketer calls: People have gotten good at identifying those within 2-3 seconds as pre-recorded crap. These new ones are made to sound like a normal voicemail, so it takes longer to identify it as spam.
Say they look at phone records with the company and see a call made earlier on the day of the arrest. So you remembered your password at 10:38 am, 11:14 am, 12:22 pm, and 2:48 pm, but at 4 pm you don't remember?
"Hey Siri, call Bob at the office."
Do you actually need to unlock your phone for it to function as a phone? I can dial strait from the voice recognition without unlocking on mine.
The evidence that Chadwick was lying would have passed a criminal test of proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that is the major problem here. In this case it might have been found guilty of obstructing justice if he was given a trial. However, he was specifically not given a trial on this issue, nor ever given the opportunity for one. He was jailed for 14 years for it - that's about twice as long as he would've gotten if he'd just murdered his wife instead!
And the real issue, as it pertains to the subject at hand, is that if judges are allowed to force someone to volunteer information against themselves under threat of decade+ jail time, you run wholly afoul of the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. Add to this that it's completely possible for a person to honestly not know/remember a passcode and you've got a recipe for completely unconstitutional situations that are impossible for the victims to get out of.
Then that sucks. In the case you linked to though, it seems there was good reason for him to be in contempt:
The problem is that it doesn't matter what it looks like. You're not supposed to ever be jailed without a trail, and especially without any possibility for a trail, nor for a completely arbitrary and indefinite amount of time.
Let that sink in: If the judge believes you're lying, then whether or not you are, you can be jailed effectively forever, completely without a trial. The only way to even get a trial is to admit you committed perjury - that is about as clear a case of coerced self-incrimination as I can think of, and precisely what the 5th Amendment is supposed to protect you from. And, if you are actually telling the truth, it is impossible for you to ever prove it, as you will never get a trial at which to do so.
You have to plead the Fifth from the very beginning (you don't talk to the cops, you don't talk during trial) and you have to plead it for every line of inquiry.
Yeah, pretty sure that's bullshit. Otherwise, a cop can ask you what you had for breakfast, and if you tell him, you're forced to answer every other question you're asked from then on? So absurd it's laughable.
the judge equates the password or pin code to a safe combination and using prior supreme court precedent that defendants have no 5th amendment protection in a combination are then compelled to divulge the combination/password/pin.
Completely untrue in just about every way.
The Supreme Court actually has never directly ruled on such a case, but have used lock combinations as an example case in other rulings. In those rulings, they have consistently implied that one would not have to divulge the combination. As stated in the Supreme Court ruling, “the expression of the contents of an individual’s mind is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment."
Except if a Judge decides he doesn't give a fuck, it doesn't matter how good your lawyer is.
An exact parallel to this case Has already happened, and it took 14 years for the guy to get out of jail. What kind of horrible crime must he have committed to be jailed for that long without a trail or conviction? It wasn't even a criminal case, but a divorce case! The wife said he hid $2.5 million overseas. He said he didn't and actually had lost the money in a bad investment. Judge didn't believe him, and put him in contempt of court. The guy was even a top notch attorney himself, so it's not like he wouldn't have had good representation. Simply put, the judge got pissed that he claimed something that was unprovable and that the judge didn't beleive, and put him in a hole to rot until he agreed to provide evidence against himself that he lied to the court.
Problem is that the log operator has an implied number in it (i.e. what base is the log of), so I'd say that's fraudulently introducing a number by just not writing it down. Ditto with sqrt() and similar operators that look like unary operators, but are actually binary+ operators that have missing operands implied.
Actually, looking at that, using sqrt(x) is cheating, as that's properly 24 - so you're actually getting a 2 pushed into the equation. If you're going to do that, why not just say you can use inc(x) or dec(x) and skip the whole nested log4(sqrt(x)) stuff? Really, if you're going to allow shortcut operators that have other numbers inside them, why not just allow one(x) defined as x-x+1, two(x) defined as x-x+2, etc. etc.?
If you limit yourself to actual unary operators, is it still as easy to find a similar arbitrary nested loop that will give any number with a single operand?
Hmmm... no. 4^4 = 256. 4^256 = 1.3407807929942597099574024998206e+154. So 4^that = too big to easily calculate.
It looks like my previous estimate of 4^4^4^4 got calculated as ((4^4)^4)^4, when it needs to be done as 4^(4^(4^4)) to give the correct biggest number with standard operators.
Which is fine, but does make the concept much less interesting to me. It's interesting from a pure math standpoint, but becomes rather stale rather quickly when it's simply an "infinite iterations = infinite amount of numbers" mathematical slog.
Much more interesting to me is how far you can go with only a basic set of operators, and no recursive nesting of operators inside each other.
Ah, so you're allowed to arbitrarily stack an infinite number of operators? Lame. In that case, you probably don't need this to be Four 4's, but can probably be four of any number except 0, 1, or 2. It also just turns this into more of a computational slog than a clever math trick.
Also, you can't actually get "any number" since you'll max out at a number when using the highest performing operator which I think would be the power operator, so the highest number you can make is 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 (i.e. 4^4^4^4). And you'll be unable to get most of the numbers on the way there since you run out of the 4's to use to fill in gaps.
My question would be, just how high can you get before you miss a whole number?
why in earth do you think this is positive? do you not realize that all this crap will be revisited upon "your side" the next time rolls are reversed? Are there laws being broken? no? then do your job or leave. Do you want insurrection?
"My side" is the one who is against politically motivated purges of government offices. I don't care which party tries to do this - this is unethical, and leads to something illegal, and should be resisted at all costs. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, if you try to do politically motivated purges through a whole department, you should be fought tooth and nail.
Then by your definition every President that has failed to enforce the immigration laws should have been impeached. Is that correct?
If by "failed to enforce" you mean "eliminated the agency responsible" then yes, that would be something that Congress could consider impeachable. Deciding on direction of focus, so long as it still maintains the Federal mandate of the ICE is within the President's power (via the Director of Homeland Security).
Now, more directly to your point: If you're trying to get in a dig against Obama here (like you can even pretend you aren't), then you'll be happy to know that under Obama the ICE has deported around 300,000 illegal aliens per year throughout his Presidency. The ICE even reached their all-time high numbers for deportations in 2013. He has deported about 25% more illegal immigrants than GWB did. It's estimated that Obama will have deported more people under his Presidency than every single President in the 20th century combined.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll not pay for a third, and will elect to visit whatever the replacement for TPB is instead and stream from there.
You mean TPB? Every time they kill it, it comes back. I swear, it's some kind of phoenix always rising from its own ashes...
2) *someone* would make a front-end that re-aggregated all the services into a unified UI and would be attacked by the media cartel instantly.
Attacks for that are seriously doubtful. "Guardians of the Galaxy is only available if you purchase the Disney Streaming service. [Purchase now?]" As long as you still have to pay their service fees to get their shows, they won't care. Aggregate services are fine, competing services are not.
If you're in the US, not sure that's an issue. Isn't CBS still free over the air??
That depends on if you own a HDTV with a tuner built in, and if you've bought an HDTV antenna.
You feel FOR other's pain.
You get an emotional reaction AS IF you're being hurt - minus the pain.
Tylenol has been indicated to reduce emotional pain as well as physical pain, so equating empathy for others' pain to an emotional response supports this.
It is exactly what's going on here. The ability to call a voicemail platform system and leave a voicemail for any subscriber contained within it, without ringing their cell phone, has existed for years. This is not new technology wherein the telemarketer is "glitching" your phone.
Well, the multiple calls a week I've received from these companies that are trying but failing to go straight to voicemail says that either it doesn't work on all platforms, or they're using a different method than the one you're familiar with.
With the current method I've seen numbers often dial my phone 5+ times in under 3 seconds (sometimes causing it to ring, sometimes not), so I'd say they are not going through some standard straight-to-voicemail method, but are indeed trying to glitch the system with rapid fire dial-and-hangups. My guess is that they're using the rapid redials to cause the system to think your phone is already on a call and drop a subsequent call to voicemail.
I still get 15-20 calls a day. I guess I have to make myself a much bigger pain in their asses to get on the global blacklist, then.
Maybe calling up, talking softly, then suddenly screaming as loud as I can will do the trick. :)
Speed redial is quick to do and annoys the next CC agent.
What? You put me on your black list for doing that?
Well, mission accomplished.
I did once get a company to stop calling by calling them back repeatedly over a 2 hour timeframe. Every time I called, I pretended to be a different person, and ran the gamut from pissed off, to crying uncontrollably, to just telling the fucker on the other end over and over "make the world a better place. Kill yourself." (The latter I wouldn't do to a normal telemarketer, but I was pissed at these guys because it was a verified scam from overseas trying to steal your credit cards.)
They never actually blocked me that I know of (I just stopped calling after a few hours when I had to head to work), but I never did get another call from them.
In that case, if I had a T1 line, I'd be doing this 24/7 to some of these fuckers.
If they're calling us illegally, are we OK in getting a few thousand of us DDoSing their phone numbers with recordings of obscene phone calls? If so, I'd be totally in.
If they have the right to fill up my voicemail with message I don't want, I should have the same right to continually call them, tying up their phone line. Sounds fair, right?
You absolutely can do that. The problem is that it doesn't do shit. If you call back the number, you get a pre-recorded message. All you're really doing is wasting your own time. Even if you do get their direct line and call in, it's a bank of minimum-wage call center idiots who just hang up on you when they figure out you don't want to buy anything.
That's not what is going on here. This is telemarketers attempting to glitch your cell phones into not ringing, and then leaving voicemail for you.
One big problem is that this doesn't always work. Every single day I get at least 1-2 one-ring-then-hang-up calls, often 3-4 of them within 5 seconds of each other, followed by a voicemail. And those voicemail notifiers still chime, still distract me from what I'm doing, and it still takes time to listen to the voicemail before I determine that it's not really something for me.
And that brings up the reason this is often even more annoying and inconvenient than normal telemarketer calls: People have gotten good at identifying those within 2-3 seconds as pre-recorded crap. These new ones are made to sound like a normal voicemail, so it takes longer to identify it as spam.
Say they look at phone records with the company and see a call made earlier on the day of the arrest. So you remembered your password at 10:38 am, 11:14 am, 12:22 pm, and 2:48 pm, but at 4 pm you don't remember?
"Hey Siri, call Bob at the office."
Do you actually need to unlock your phone for it to function as a phone? I can dial strait from the voice recognition without unlocking on mine.
The evidence that Chadwick was lying would have passed a criminal test of proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that is the major problem here. In this case it might have been found guilty of obstructing justice if he was given a trial. However, he was specifically not given a trial on this issue, nor ever given the opportunity for one. He was jailed for 14 years for it - that's about twice as long as he would've gotten if he'd just murdered his wife instead!
And the real issue, as it pertains to the subject at hand, is that if judges are allowed to force someone to volunteer information against themselves under threat of decade+ jail time, you run wholly afoul of the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. Add to this that it's completely possible for a person to honestly not know/remember a passcode and you've got a recipe for completely unconstitutional situations that are impossible for the victims to get out of.
Except if a Judge decides he doesn't give a fuck,
Then that sucks. In the case you linked to though, it seems there was good reason for him to be in contempt:
The problem is that it doesn't matter what it looks like. You're not supposed to ever be jailed without a trail, and especially without any possibility for a trail, nor for a completely arbitrary and indefinite amount of time.
Let that sink in: If the judge believes you're lying, then whether or not you are, you can be jailed effectively forever, completely without a trial. The only way to even get a trial is to admit you committed perjury - that is about as clear a case of coerced self-incrimination as I can think of, and precisely what the 5th Amendment is supposed to protect you from. And, if you are actually telling the truth, it is impossible for you to ever prove it, as you will never get a trial at which to do so.
You have to plead the Fifth from the very beginning (you don't talk to the cops, you don't talk during trial) and you have to plead it for every line of inquiry.
Yeah, pretty sure that's bullshit. Otherwise, a cop can ask you what you had for breakfast, and if you tell him, you're forced to answer every other question you're asked from then on? So absurd it's laughable.
the judge equates the password or pin code to a safe combination and using prior supreme court precedent that defendants have no 5th amendment protection in a combination are then compelled to divulge the combination/password/pin.
Completely untrue in just about every way.
The Supreme Court actually has never directly ruled on such a case, but have used lock combinations as an example case in other rulings. In those rulings, they have consistently implied that one would not have to divulge the combination. As stated in the Supreme Court ruling, “the expression of the contents of an individual’s mind is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment."
More info here: http://blogs.denverpost.com/cr...
Except if a Judge decides he doesn't give a fuck, it doesn't matter how good your lawyer is.
An exact parallel to this case Has already happened, and it took 14 years for the guy to get out of jail. What kind of horrible crime must he have committed to be jailed for that long without a trail or conviction? It wasn't even a criminal case, but a divorce case! The wife said he hid $2.5 million overseas. He said he didn't and actually had lost the money in a bad investment. Judge didn't believe him, and put him in contempt of court. The guy was even a top notch attorney himself, so it's not like he wouldn't have had good representation. Simply put, the judge got pissed that he claimed something that was unprovable and that the judge didn't beleive, and put him in a hole to rot until he agreed to provide evidence against himself that he lied to the court.
Link to details: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/sto...
Problem is that the log operator has an implied number in it (i.e. what base is the log of), so I'd say that's fraudulently introducing a number by just not writing it down. Ditto with sqrt() and similar operators that look like unary operators, but are actually binary+ operators that have missing operands implied.
Note: Slashdot formatting strikes again. That "24" was supposed to be "2 {radical sign} 4".
Actually, looking at that, using sqrt(x) is cheating, as that's properly 24 - so you're actually getting a 2 pushed into the equation. If you're going to do that, why not just say you can use inc(x) or dec(x) and skip the whole nested log4(sqrt(x)) stuff? Really, if you're going to allow shortcut operators that have other numbers inside them, why not just allow one(x) defined as x-x+1, two(x) defined as x-x+2, etc. etc.?
If you limit yourself to actual unary operators, is it still as easy to find a similar arbitrary nested loop that will give any number with a single operand?
4^444 > 4^4^4^4
Hmmm... no. 4^4 = 256. 4^256 = 1.3407807929942597099574024998206e+154. So 4^that = too big to easily calculate.
It looks like my previous estimate of 4^4^4^4 got calculated as ((4^4)^4)^4, when it needs to be done as 4^(4^(4^4)) to give the correct biggest number with standard operators.
Which is fine, but does make the concept much less interesting to me. It's interesting from a pure math standpoint, but becomes rather stale rather quickly when it's simply an "infinite iterations = infinite amount of numbers" mathematical slog.
Much more interesting to me is how far you can go with only a basic set of operators, and no recursive nesting of operators inside each other.
Ah, so you're allowed to arbitrarily stack an infinite number of operators? Lame. In that case, you probably don't need this to be Four 4's, but can probably be four of any number except 0, 1, or 2. It also just turns this into more of a computational slog than a clever math trick.
Also, you can't actually get "any number" since you'll max out at a number when using the highest performing operator which I think would be the power operator, so the highest number you can make is 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 (i.e. 4^4^4^4). And you'll be unable to get most of the numbers on the way there since you run out of the 4's to use to fill in gaps.
My question would be, just how high can you get before you miss a whole number?
What's the difference between government workers who defy elected officials and tyranny?
Quite a lot, depending on how and why they refused orders. For example, the Nuremberg Trials had something to say about that.
why in earth do you think this is positive? do you not realize that all this crap will be revisited upon "your side" the next time rolls are reversed? Are there laws being broken? no? then do your job or leave. Do you want insurrection?
"My side" is the one who is against politically motivated purges of government offices. I don't care which party tries to do this - this is unethical, and leads to something illegal, and should be resisted at all costs. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, if you try to do politically motivated purges through a whole department, you should be fought tooth and nail.
Then by your definition every President that has failed to enforce the immigration laws should have been impeached. Is that correct?
If by "failed to enforce" you mean "eliminated the agency responsible" then yes, that would be something that Congress could consider impeachable. Deciding on direction of focus, so long as it still maintains the Federal mandate of the ICE is within the President's power (via the Director of Homeland Security).
Now, more directly to your point: If you're trying to get in a dig against Obama here (like you can even pretend you aren't), then you'll be happy to know that under Obama the ICE has deported around 300,000 illegal aliens per year throughout his Presidency. The ICE even reached their all-time high numbers for deportations in 2013. He has deported about 25% more illegal immigrants than GWB did. It's estimated that Obama will have deported more people under his Presidency than every single President in the 20th century combined.