You could! My machine is old and has an electromechanical cycle control; it can probably be hacked to either have a longer wash cycle, a shorter spin cycle or any other combination you could think of.
The newest machines with all-electronic controls might even have some kind of programmable controller that could modify wash behavior.
This is still true today. Several of our photocopiers are capable of going faster with some kind of switch setting change; there's nothing different about the faster machines themselves, just the "slow down" setting on the less expensive model.
Haven't tech companies been doing this kind of thing forever? Even when geeks find out about it and take advantage of it, they usually make out on it anyway since so many other people don't care and wouldn't know how to bypass in the first place.
I think they're starting to do this above-board now with "utility computing" and other on-demand features; they ship you a beefier box than you need, with the idea that you can enable/disable the extra power as needed.
The media problem would be easier by merging disk backup and tape backup.
I got a demo of a SAN system from Xiotech that (along with all similar systems) could do a "snapshot" of a logical unit, which could then be mounted on another system, allowing you to do tests of a production system without the bother of trying to keep seperate systems parallel and guaranteeing that you were running an EXACT copy of the original system.
What they didn't have yet was a way to do an incremental snapshot, where you only had to dupe what had changed. I'm not entirely sure how you do this at the LUN level and retain filesystem level coherency, but I imagine if it could be done you could do a disk snapshot for your full backup and then incremental snapshots for whatever time was practical.
At the end of this period, you'd dump the snapshot + incrementals (which typically would be far less than N full snapshots) to tape, allowing you your permanent archive on cheap media, with the added bonus that you weren't necessarily constrained to an overnight backup window.
The virtue being that you'd get the short-term benefits of disk-based backups (speed, reliability, ease of use) and can couple it with the benefits of tape.
Did they feature "gourmet" coffee, espresso, or was it just better-than-average coffee?
We had a number of hippie cafes prior to the "good coffee" phenom, but they served food and just plain coffee, instead of just baked goods and coffee products like your now-common "coffee shop".
Even if the mechanical elements of the rovers were to break or become unusable and they couldn't drive around or dig, it would still be very valuable to have functioning cameras and other sensors on Mars for some time to come.
It just seems odd to spend so much money and take so many chances flying something to Mars to not do everything possible to ensure that the device worked for a long, long time.
In most of the US, Starbucks created a desire and a market for decent little coffee shops. It's increased the demand for coffee shops so much that it also increased the demand for non-Starbucks coffee shops.
It'd be interesting to read a history of coffee, particularly the "good coffee/espresso" trend that I noticed here in Minneapolis in the late 80s.
Outside of a few ethnic neighborhoods and New York, could you even *get* an espresso prior to 1985 or so? Hell, in Minneapolis you could only get that weak, commercial "all day" coffee that midwestern women made and drank. Espresso, latte and "gourmet" coffee were unheard of then. Some organic coops may have sold whole beans because they were unprocessed, but not necessarily because they made gourmet coffee.
I'd expect you'd have to pay for a monthly fee for access to your applications, something that a lot of folks would probably not look kindly upon.
I'd love to be able to get access to really expensive applications without having to buy them outright. I'd willingly spend $50 or something over a couple of months to use an application that would normally cost me $1k.
I'm sure it wouldn't be that easy, but renting applications isn't always a nefarious idea.
Social scientists drool over the mundane stuff that's otherwise not kept. Yes, producers and studios keep their actual shows, but what actually gets broadcast otherwise -- news, commercials, local talk shows -- are what really demonstrate who we are. They show what style of dress is important, what kinds of food we ate, the cars we drove, the attitudes we have, what we thought was important vs. what we thought wasn't important.
I always wished that TVLand would show a couple of hours of broadcasts as they happened, with all the original commericals intact. I'm sure it's an IP nightmare, but it would be fascinating. But then again, I think old magazines are as interesting for the ads as for the articles.
Yeah, but you have PRIs (which happen to use T1s as the carrier).
We have plain DSS T1s, no ISDN signalling involved, and I'm pretty sure our switch vendor has told us "no caller ID without ISDN". What I don't know is if this is a limitation of Nortel's software, or if it's a limitation of DSS T1 trunk signalling, which only has the DID info and nothing else.
I suspect the latter, as I don't think Nortel would just support caller ID on ISDN, especially considering they've had display capable phones since the SL-1 series.
Different from the "Bass" and "Treble" controls I remember growing up? After a while they were replaced with various flavors of "Bass Boost" and some generic "EQ" settings that variously made the music sound fairly awful.
I think you might even need ISDN. We have a Meridian Option 61 with voice T1s, and we get no caller ID information on incoming calls, and outgoing caller ID is the number assigned to the outbound trunks or unavailable.
What I'm unsure of is whether our switch's software is just braindead, or if its data that's only really provided with ISDN, but I do know that T1s don't automatically provide caller ID data if your switch doesn't support it.
of course, the flip side to this, is that you have to be satisfied with a camera that is "out of date"..
The major bad thing about this is that the more rapid the product cycle, the crappier the firmware or supporting desktop software is, making us more and more dependent on frequent and numerous software updates to get relatively bug-free operation.
With ultra-fast product cycles, we're looking at software obsolence and product abandonment far faster than we otherwise would have. The device may still work, but have critical bugs/problems/issues that aren't resolved without buying the next item in the product cycle.
It's obviously something less of an issue with devices that have a non-proprietary data interface (eg, memory cards), but something like the iPod really needs its proprietary software to function as designed. But it's still a critical issue regardless if the firmware inside the device doesn't work right.
I love updatable firmware, I hate the fact that it's become an excuse for manufacturers to release broken products and sometimes fix them as they go.
Stupid admins STILL haven't fixed the overlapping problem in Mozilla/Firefox
Is this the problem I get when I load a page in Slashdot and the text in the center overlaps over the sidebars, particularly on the left hand side of the page?
I'm (oops) still running 1.7b on WinXP, and I also get just a page with icons and graphics and no text occasionally, too. Hitting reload solves both problems, but sometimes I have to do it more than once.
I should upgrade to whatever the most recent stable is and see if it changes. I kind of thought it was a squid-related phenomenon, although I don't see this problem with other sites like imdb.
There's no reason why you couldn't read each of the DVDs in serially and incrementally rebuilt the lost DVD.
That's kind of where I was going; the DVDs are a storage medium for a multi-part archive, and a HDD internal to the jukebox provides the working filesystem once sequential reads of the DVDs are done.
I know that some tape drives have memory chips for labeling and positioning data, but I've often wondered if you couldn't have a storage device with a built-in HDD and tape-type unit that would implement a HFS invisible to the OS. The HDD keeps frequently accessed data and transparently reads/writes from the tape drive. It's probably mechanically impractical and too expensive, but an interesting idea.
I always wondered about that way back in the days of multi-floppy spanned ZIP files that crapped out on a single disk -- why not parity info in the zip file so that you could lose a segment of the zip file (one or more floppies) so that a burned out floppy wouldn't cause a problem.
Your suggestion would either imply writing DVDs such that the parity was part of the filesystem on the DVD itself, or containerizing the data (like a disk image) so that the "file" on the DVD had parity info in it.
Either way, you'd need a big jukebox capable of mounting a set of DVDs at one time to accomodate the parity info. If you assume 14 DVDs readers, it's probably too small an amount of data to make it worthwhile, unless you had big HDD(s) in the jukebox and internal logic to rebuild the RAID set into a single logical file off of multiple DVDs.
I'd love to see a Firewire hub that could act as a hardware RAID controller. A program on the computer would enable management of the RAID controller, and once formatted, the logical volumes would be presented to the host computer as standard disk volumes, eliminating the need for any special drivers on the host computer, as well as enabling the entire array to be portable to other platforms.
How expensive could something like this really be? $300-400 at most, I'd have to guess considering what most places are charging for SATA RAID cards.
It's a great idea, but one of the problems is what happens when your data goes bad before you realize it and it gets replicated. Then you want what you had yesterday, and that means tape.
You can solve this by ensuring some kind of in-process backup (like a SQL maintenance schedule, where it replicates itself), but then you're loading your replication process with a bunch of data that doesn't really need to be online, it needs to be in a vault someplace.
Besides, Sarbannes-Oxley and the IRS want you to keep backups 5+ years anyway, so this replication-only model is only good for data whose internal integrity isn't meaningful to anyone but the owner.
If your "work" (as in food, housing and income) requires this kind of storage, you should be charging the kind of money that can make the ecomomics of such data storage actually viable. I'm assuming that some of the really high-end storage devices from EMC, Hitachi, et al could handle your data generation/replication/backup needs effortlessly.
If that's too expensive (and it usually is), you can kludge your own system using low-end stuff from Hpaq/IBM/Dell's x86-server-oriented product lines. LTO1 drives are pretty cheap and we've found them to be very reliable over the past 3+ years, as well as offering 100 gig native per tape.
If even that's too expensive, then I seriously think you need to re-think the economics of your work situation. If your work doesn't cover your capital costs, you're not charging enough. If the work and data are business valuable enough, cutting your storage bill to the bone by building Linux clusters crammed with IDE HDDs is just a bad business decision.
If this is just your hobby-type work, then you need a cheaper hobby, like heroin addiction or something affordable. Physical space and electricity aren't cheap enough in a metropolitan area to burn through 1TB of storage per month, let along reliable data storage.
I don't want a richer web experience, I want a lightweight (less animation, video, audio, system and network overhead), free from annoying ads that control my browser, and free from exploits -- I DO NOT want to be running code from web sites on my PC, sandbox or no sandbox.
Apple wants Quicktime, Sun wants Java, Macromedia wants Flash, and Mozilla wants to be invited to the party, and I don't want page loads to be made even slower by MORE FUCKING TV commercial ads bloated by Quicktime, Java, Flash and corrupting the one browser I can halfway trust.
Can someone please explain this to me. If you are making a profit, you are making a profit. Money in hand. Mula. Black ink. Why a company can't simultaneously produce goods and research new ones is beyond me.
In electronics, it's all about contract manufacturing. Owning your own factory only makes sense if you're the only one who can make your product (like an Intel chip fab) or you're the only one you want making your product. In the case of Nortel, their products may have been unique enough that there was some incentive to do it themselves, or at least inertia remaining from days gone by.
But they realize that the future of telephony is VoIP and that those components will be commodity -- with Nortel supplying chip designs and software at the most.
Where it gets scary is when the company becomes just a name, and EVERYTHING is contracted out -- you have a marketing and sales arm and that's it -- the product, the design, the manufacturing are all done outside.
The spam is illegal. The products are fraudulent. The trail exists. Nothing is done. Why? Because your politicians never actually read their own email, so they don't have to deal with it.
I'm not sure that's it, but I'd wager that the DMA or other business lobby groups has put a lot of pressure on the FTC, Congress and other enforcement/lawmaking entities and lobbied them heavily on the value of spam to their respective businesses; they soft-peddle it as only "porn" being a problem, when in reality all the other shady, it's-legal-if-you-read-the-disclaimers spamvertised businesses are just as, if not more, fraudulent than porn. Idiot politicians boil it down to its most basic election politics -- "business good, porn bad" and don't do anything about it.
Who also wants to bet that the DMA didn't strike some secret deal with the FTC over the Do Not Call list; "we won't make a Supreme Court case out of it if you don't start handing out spam indictments".
All in all, the mystery remains, though -- spam is illegal, the products are fraudulent at best, and the money trail exists, yet nothing is done about it. I know it's not a pure conspiracy, but it really feels like one.
2. The US government is pro-business (as it should be, IMHO).
No, it should be pro-*citizen*, not pro-business. USPTO being pro-business is the reason we're in the situation we're in. Patents and the patentability of ideas should reflect the good of the citizenry, not the business merits of the idea in question.
Finally, a poster that sees it right (or at least my way...:).
Spamming and spamvertised business have become enmeshed in the otherwise legitmate economy (either through banking, ISPs, list brokering or trickle-down to middlemen like mortgage intermediaries).
Why isn't the FTC leaning on those people? Or at least publicizing their involvement in spam, even if it is indirect?
Furthermore, given the prima faciae fraudulent and/or illegal nature of spamvertised businesses and products, why isn't the FBI starting RICO investigations against these third parties whose implicit cooperation is necessary for spammers to do business at all? RICO has serious penalties and can be used to "bundle" miscellaneous state and federal law violations that would otherwise be unprosecutable or not worth prosecuting individually.
There's too much of this "it's all overseas" mantra and "we can't do anything about it." I say bullshit -- there's a money trail to follow and a bunch of people who would rather not be the target of a Federal racketeering indictment who live right here in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
You could! My machine is old and has an electromechanical cycle control; it can probably be hacked to either have a longer wash cycle, a shorter spin cycle or any other combination you could think of.
The newest machines with all-electronic controls might even have some kind of programmable controller that could modify wash behavior.
This is still true today. Several of our photocopiers are capable of going faster with some kind of switch setting change; there's nothing different about the faster machines themselves, just the "slow down" setting on the less expensive model.
Haven't tech companies been doing this kind of thing forever? Even when geeks find out about it and take advantage of it, they usually make out on it anyway since so many other people don't care and wouldn't know how to bypass in the first place.
I think they're starting to do this above-board now with "utility computing" and other on-demand features; they ship you a beefier box than you need, with the idea that you can enable/disable the extra power as needed.
The media problem would be easier by merging disk backup and tape backup.
I got a demo of a SAN system from Xiotech that (along with all similar systems) could do a "snapshot" of a logical unit, which could then be mounted on another system, allowing you to do tests of a production system without the bother of trying to keep seperate systems parallel and guaranteeing that you were running an EXACT copy of the original system.
What they didn't have yet was a way to do an incremental snapshot, where you only had to dupe what had changed. I'm not entirely sure how you do this at the LUN level and retain filesystem level coherency, but I imagine if it could be done you could do a disk snapshot for your full backup and then incremental snapshots for whatever time was practical.
At the end of this period, you'd dump the snapshot + incrementals (which typically would be far less than N full snapshots) to tape, allowing you your permanent archive on cheap media, with the added bonus that you weren't necessarily constrained to an overnight backup window.
The virtue being that you'd get the short-term benefits of disk-based backups (speed, reliability, ease of use) and can couple it with the benefits of tape.
Did they feature "gourmet" coffee, espresso, or was it just better-than-average coffee?
We had a number of hippie cafes prior to the "good coffee" phenom, but they served food and just plain coffee, instead of just baked goods and coffee products like your now-common "coffee shop".
Why didn't they use them instead?
Even if the mechanical elements of the rovers were to break or become unusable and they couldn't drive around or dig, it would still be very valuable to have functioning cameras and other sensors on Mars for some time to come.
It just seems odd to spend so much money and take so many chances flying something to Mars to not do everything possible to ensure that the device worked for a long, long time.
In most of the US, Starbucks created a desire and a market for decent little coffee shops. It's increased the demand for coffee shops so much that it also increased the demand for non-Starbucks coffee shops.
It'd be interesting to read a history of coffee, particularly the "good coffee/espresso" trend that I noticed here in Minneapolis in the late 80s.
Outside of a few ethnic neighborhoods and New York, could you even *get* an espresso prior to 1985 or so? Hell, in Minneapolis you could only get that weak, commercial "all day" coffee that midwestern women made and drank. Espresso, latte and "gourmet" coffee were unheard of then. Some organic coops may have sold whole beans because they were unprocessed, but not necessarily because they made gourmet coffee.
I'd expect you'd have to pay for a monthly fee for access to your applications, something that a lot of folks would probably not look kindly upon.
I'd love to be able to get access to really expensive applications without having to buy them outright. I'd willingly spend $50 or something over a couple of months to use an application that would normally cost me $1k.
I'm sure it wouldn't be that easy, but renting applications isn't always a nefarious idea.
Social scientists drool over the mundane stuff that's otherwise not kept. Yes, producers and studios keep their actual shows, but what actually gets broadcast otherwise -- news, commercials, local talk shows -- are what really demonstrate who we are. They show what style of dress is important, what kinds of food we ate, the cars we drove, the attitudes we have, what we thought was important vs. what we thought wasn't important.
I always wished that TVLand would show a couple of hours of broadcasts as they happened, with all the original commericals intact. I'm sure it's an IP nightmare, but it would be fascinating. But then again, I think old magazines are as interesting for the ads as for the articles.
Yeah, but you have PRIs (which happen to use T1s as the carrier).
We have plain DSS T1s, no ISDN signalling involved, and I'm pretty sure our switch vendor has told us "no caller ID without ISDN". What I don't know is if this is a limitation of Nortel's software, or if it's a limitation of DSS T1 trunk signalling, which only has the DID info and nothing else.
I suspect the latter, as I don't think Nortel would just support caller ID on ISDN, especially considering they've had display capable phones since the SL-1 series.
Are SRS, WOW and TruBass real "features"?
Different from the "Bass" and "Treble" controls I remember growing up? After a while they were replaced with various flavors of "Bass Boost" and some generic "EQ" settings that variously made the music sound fairly awful.
I think you might even need ISDN. We have a Meridian Option 61 with voice T1s, and we get no caller ID information on incoming calls, and outgoing caller ID is the number assigned to the outbound trunks or unavailable.
What I'm unsure of is whether our switch's software is just braindead, or if its data that's only really provided with ISDN, but I do know that T1s don't automatically provide caller ID data if your switch doesn't support it.
of course, the flip side to this, is that you have to be satisfied with a camera that is "out of date"..
The major bad thing about this is that the more rapid the product cycle, the crappier the firmware or supporting desktop software is, making us more and more dependent on frequent and numerous software updates to get relatively bug-free operation.
With ultra-fast product cycles, we're looking at software obsolence and product abandonment far faster than we otherwise would have. The device may still work, but have critical bugs/problems/issues that aren't resolved without buying the next item in the product cycle.
It's obviously something less of an issue with devices that have a non-proprietary data interface (eg, memory cards), but something like the iPod really needs its proprietary software to function as designed. But it's still a critical issue regardless if the firmware inside the device doesn't work right.
I love updatable firmware, I hate the fact that it's become an excuse for manufacturers to release broken products and sometimes fix them as they go.
Stupid admins STILL haven't fixed the overlapping problem in Mozilla/Firefox
Is this the problem I get when I load a page in Slashdot and the text in the center overlaps over the sidebars, particularly on the left hand side of the page?
I'm (oops) still running 1.7b on WinXP, and I also get just a page with icons and graphics and no text occasionally, too. Hitting reload solves both problems, but sometimes I have to do it more than once.
I should upgrade to whatever the most recent stable is and see if it changes. I kind of thought it was a squid-related phenomenon, although I don't see this problem with other sites like imdb.
Timmy might be a bully now, keeping all the juiceboxes for him, but 15 years down the road he'll be a law abiding citizen.
And a paid lobbyist for the RIAA and the MPAA.
..and $15 for all the snacks you snuck into the movie. When are we going to get a law about that?
There's no reason why you couldn't read each of the DVDs in serially and incrementally rebuilt the lost DVD.
That's kind of where I was going; the DVDs are a storage medium for a multi-part archive, and a HDD internal to the jukebox provides the working filesystem once sequential reads of the DVDs are done.
I know that some tape drives have memory chips for labeling and positioning data, but I've often wondered if you couldn't have a storage device with a built-in HDD and tape-type unit that would implement a HFS invisible to the OS. The HDD keeps frequently accessed data and transparently reads/writes from the tape drive. It's probably mechanically impractical and too expensive, but an interesting idea.
I always wondered about that way back in the days of multi-floppy spanned ZIP files that crapped out on a single disk -- why not parity info in the zip file so that you could lose a segment of the zip file (one or more floppies) so that a burned out floppy wouldn't cause a problem.
Your suggestion would either imply writing DVDs such that the parity was part of the filesystem on the DVD itself, or containerizing the data (like a disk image) so that the "file" on the DVD had parity info in it.
Either way, you'd need a big jukebox capable of mounting a set of DVDs at one time to accomodate the parity info. If you assume 14 DVDs readers, it's probably too small an amount of data to make it worthwhile, unless you had big HDD(s) in the jukebox and internal logic to rebuild the RAID set into a single logical file off of multiple DVDs.
I'd love to see a Firewire hub that could act as a hardware RAID controller. A program on the computer would enable management of the RAID controller, and once formatted, the logical volumes would be presented to the host computer as standard disk volumes, eliminating the need for any special drivers on the host computer, as well as enabling the entire array to be portable to other platforms.
How expensive could something like this really be? $300-400 at most, I'd have to guess considering what most places are charging for SATA RAID cards.
It's a great idea, but one of the problems is what happens when your data goes bad before you realize it and it gets replicated. Then you want what you had yesterday, and that means tape.
You can solve this by ensuring some kind of in-process backup (like a SQL maintenance schedule, where it replicates itself), but then you're loading your replication process with a bunch of data that doesn't really need to be online, it needs to be in a vault someplace.
Besides, Sarbannes-Oxley and the IRS want you to keep backups 5+ years anyway, so this replication-only model is only good for data whose internal integrity isn't meaningful to anyone but the owner.
If your "work" (as in food, housing and income) requires this kind of storage, you should be charging the kind of money that can make the ecomomics of such data storage actually viable. I'm assuming that some of the really high-end storage devices from EMC, Hitachi, et al could handle your data generation/replication/backup needs effortlessly.
If that's too expensive (and it usually is), you can kludge your own system using low-end stuff from Hpaq/IBM/Dell's x86-server-oriented product lines. LTO1 drives are pretty cheap and we've found them to be very reliable over the past 3+ years, as well as offering 100 gig native per tape.
If even that's too expensive, then I seriously think you need to re-think the economics of your work situation. If your work doesn't cover your capital costs, you're not charging enough. If the work and data are business valuable enough, cutting your storage bill to the bone by building Linux clusters crammed with IDE HDDs is just a bad business decision.
If this is just your hobby-type work, then you need a cheaper hobby, like heroin addiction or something affordable. Physical space and electricity aren't cheap enough in a metropolitan area to burn through 1TB of storage per month, let along reliable data storage.
I don't want a richer web experience, I want a lightweight (less animation, video, audio, system and network overhead), free from annoying ads that control my browser, and free from exploits -- I DO NOT want to be running code from web sites on my PC, sandbox or no sandbox.
Apple wants Quicktime, Sun wants Java, Macromedia wants Flash, and Mozilla wants to be invited to the party, and I don't want page loads to be made even slower by MORE FUCKING TV commercial ads bloated by Quicktime, Java, Flash and corrupting the one browser I can halfway trust.
If I want to watch TV, I'll watch TV.
Can someone please explain this to me. If you are making a profit, you are making a profit. Money in hand. Mula. Black ink. Why a company can't simultaneously produce goods and research new ones is beyond me.
In electronics, it's all about contract manufacturing. Owning your own factory only makes sense if you're the only one who can make your product (like an Intel chip fab) or you're the only one you want making your product. In the case of Nortel, their products may have been unique enough that there was some incentive to do it themselves, or at least inertia remaining from days gone by.
But they realize that the future of telephony is VoIP and that those components will be commodity -- with Nortel supplying chip designs and software at the most.
Where it gets scary is when the company becomes just a name, and EVERYTHING is contracted out -- you have a marketing and sales arm and that's it -- the product, the design, the manufacturing are all done outside.
The spam is illegal. The products are fraudulent. The trail exists. Nothing is done. Why? Because your politicians never actually read their own email, so they don't have to deal with it.
I'm not sure that's it, but I'd wager that the DMA or other business lobby groups has put a lot of pressure on the FTC, Congress and other enforcement/lawmaking entities and lobbied them heavily on the value of spam to their respective businesses; they soft-peddle it as only "porn" being a problem, when in reality all the other shady, it's-legal-if-you-read-the-disclaimers spamvertised businesses are just as, if not more, fraudulent than porn. Idiot politicians boil it down to its most basic election politics -- "business good, porn bad" and don't do anything about it.
Who also wants to bet that the DMA didn't strike some secret deal with the FTC over the Do Not Call list; "we won't make a Supreme Court case out of it if you don't start handing out spam indictments".
All in all, the mystery remains, though -- spam is illegal, the products are fraudulent at best, and the money trail exists, yet nothing is done about it. I know it's not a pure conspiracy, but it really feels like one.
2. The US government is pro-business (as it should be, IMHO).
No, it should be pro-*citizen*, not pro-business. USPTO being pro-business is the reason we're in the situation we're in. Patents and the patentability of ideas should reflect the good of the citizenry, not the business merits of the idea in question.
Finally, a poster that sees it right (or at least my way...:).
Spamming and spamvertised business have become enmeshed in the otherwise legitmate economy (either through banking, ISPs, list brokering or trickle-down to middlemen like mortgage intermediaries).
Why isn't the FTC leaning on those people? Or at least publicizing their involvement in spam, even if it is indirect?
Furthermore, given the prima faciae fraudulent and/or illegal nature of spamvertised businesses and products, why isn't the FBI starting RICO investigations against these third parties whose implicit cooperation is necessary for spammers to do business at all? RICO has serious penalties and can be used to "bundle" miscellaneous state and federal law violations that would otherwise be unprosecutable or not worth prosecuting individually.
There's too much of this "it's all overseas" mantra and "we can't do anything about it." I say bullshit -- there's a money trail to follow and a bunch of people who would rather not be the target of a Federal racketeering indictment who live right here in the USA.