Our outdated immigration system does not meet Americaâ(TM)s workforce needs in a global economy. We have a system that tells talented immigrants that we don't welcome their contributions. It is a system that cannot keep the United States competitive in a global economy. The time is now for Congress to act on meaningful immigration reform that boosts the American economy and does right by American families.
This is not about amnesty for illegals, this is about H1B expansion.
Sorry but I for one NEED high calorie stuff else my weight would go down too much. It is not bad food as long as you do enough to compensate with physical activity. So in my case Mc&Co are doing me a service.
False; you only covered calories. It is bad food, even if you burn it off. The amount of salt, fat, and bad cholesterol in an average McDonald's meal is unhealthy no matter what.
My specific example of Olympians also most certainly holds -- I think you would be hard pressed to find any, let alone a significant number, whose diet consists of half the ratio of McDonald's food as the average European or American.
Finally, the question is not whether it is possible to not die while eating McDonald's. Negligence really is against the law, even if you don't understand why that is good (to me, good means GDP maximizing) for our society in the long run.
You may think that spouting populist rhetoric makes you seem clever. Mostly it makes you sound as though you are as simple as the masses it is meant to sway.
If obesity is a disability, and the legal definition of maiming is to disable or disfigure, will McDonald's advertising -- particularly when it materially misleads about health issues, like their Olympics sponsorship campaigns -- be ruled negligent maiming?
Not saying it should or shouldn't -- just raising the question.
nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says... working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.
Just made me snarf coffee all over my keyboard.
(not that I don't find the Republicans more despicable than the Democrats, but the above is still very funny)
Spidey is a stingray detector app developed by the ACLU and MIT. This page is a page to get notified when it goes live. The source code is on GitHub. It works by comparing the towers you can see at any given moment against what you've seen before and data from the OpenCellID Project.
The police weren't interested in "criminal intrusion", they were doing what is called a welfare check.
No they weren't. I talked to my neighbor, I know what she said to the police, and I recounted my story correctly. She is a LEO also, so she knows exactly what she said to them, and exactly what their interpretation was.
Why is it an issue that your neighbors care enough about you to call the cops when they see something highly unusual taking place and want someone to check on your welfare?
It isn't. That's why I used carefully crafted language in my post that does not find fault with her or the officers who performed their duty.
At the same time, I am a very capable risk analyst, and I have made my own assessment of the value to myself of the criminal intruder check -- which is what it was despite your attempt to re-invent the narrative -- versus the sanctity of my castle. You may have different priorities, but it would be quite presumptuous of you to assume that mine are the same.
Sounds to me like you have your own axe to grind. Try reading my post again without the hate-on.
If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.
A while back, I left my house and accidentally left my overhead garage door open. The door that leads from my garage to my house is usually unlocked, and it was that day. When I didn't return for a couple hours, my neighbor across the street grew concerned and called the police, who came and checked my house for intruders, then closed my garage door.
All well and good in practice, as I am one of those who has nothing to hide. But I also feel strongly about my privacy. I believe that what the police did was entirely lawful, but I would prefer it not happen; knowing the crime rate in my area, I would prefer to accept the risk of criminal intrusion than the violation of privacy.
Suppose a person in such a situation posted a sign on the door from the garage to the house that said, "Notice By Owner: I do not consent to any searches of these premises for any reason." Would that change the legality of the police entering the home? If they found evidence during the search, would it be admissible? If you were going to attempt to solve the issue, how would you word the sign (or other solution)?
I understand you can't give legal advice and I am only interested to hear your unofficial opinion.
I'm a old fogey. And I welcome new programming languages. Because the existing ones suck so much.... With PHP as the major web language? With PERL is the major scripting language?
I too am an old fogey. But I welcome new programming languages because the existing ones are so good. If we had stopped with PHP, Perl, and Python, just because they are so good at what they do, we wouldn't have Groovy, Ruby, or Clojure -- which are good in new and interesting ways.
Bring forth every language anyone wishes to invent, and let the good ones rise to the top.
Hear! Hear! And keep using the "bad" ones too, to challenge your assumptions (well, maybe not COBOL).
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network,
Do health monitoring devices get priority access to electricity? Does the electric company get to decide which devices will be shut down first? Can they shut down your devices before they shut down your neighbor's, because you bought Sony instead of Samsung? Would it be good for the electric company to be allowed to negotiate priority access to electricity with the appliance manufacturers?
Net neutrality is about protecting the more important free market -- the free market in information -- by requiring the carriers to compete only on price and overall performance of their network.
"People took for granted that parents would understand [the benefits], that it was self-evident," said Michael Horn,
I'm sure they do. The benefits are self-evident. It is the people who have been advancing these programs who are lacking foresight, for not considering the costs.
The problem is not that these programs have no value, it is that the cost is large and not well understood, and that once built it is very hard to make these things go away. As a society we have not begun to seriously examine the threat of these massive databases. Recentbig data research has shown us the approximate threat level: In terms of influence power, it is "very big, larger than even the researchers expected."
Just download this software, install it, and it'll work for your email client assume you're still using an email client and there's a plugin available for it, which there might not be. Otherwise you need to copy and paste and stuff, and... oh right, then there's also the whole issue of managing keys and keeping a backup copy safe. Most people don't back anything up.
The first automobiles didn't have keys, but people have learned to use and manage them. And for those keys you can't even download the management equipment, you have to go to a hardware store to get copies.
The problem is not that it is hard, the problem is that people don't realize the threat.
take iMessage's encryption for example. Do people using it know that their messages are encrypted? Probably not. Are they given a choice? No. Do they know that they're generating encryption keys? Probably not. Are they asked to manage their own encryption keys? No.
Apple CEO Tim Cook during his keynote said that around 130 million customers have purchased their first Apple device in the last twelve months states, "Many of these customers were switchers from Android,"
So, tell me, Tim, are you bad at math, or duplicitous? It is also true that many first time users of Android, nowadays, are switchers from iPhone. How can I know that without having any figures at hand? Simple: Said slightly differently: Many people who buy a smartphone today are on their second or later smartphone, and there are only two major smartphone OSs. If it is their first smartphone with OS A, it must be either their first smartphone, or they had a Windows phone (not many of those out there), or they switched from OS B. Simple math means many who use OS A for the first time switched from OS B.
So, Tim, are you saying neither you nor anyone who went over your speech could figure that math out, or are you saying you expect your audience won't catch it, and you'd try to put one over on them? Are you bad at math, or are you a used car salesman?
department officials were at pains to make it clear the LAPD doesn't intend to use the new hardware to keep watch from above over an unsuspecting public.
Ahh, well that completely sets my mind at ease. How could anyone doubt the integrity of the LAPD?
Rolliins is an excellent poet, I love his work. Worth noting, in this case that he does just as well at generalizing, in "I know you.".
I've known people like that. But I've known more who went through all that, and came out the other side as full of compassion and love as when they went in. Not that they never felt anger, or fear, or rejection, or even hate, but that it never consumed them, never defined them.
And I've known people who have led a charmed and charismatic life, loved by all around them, and have a core of darkness and loathing in them that is genuinely frightening.
So I think your Rollins post gets it right, that generalizing is flawed. But Rollins' "I know you" makes it clear that a compelling narrative can appear to present a general truth.
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
See Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[12] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.[13]
It would be much more honest to tax them directly instead of letting the auto industry act as an intermediary.
The reason they don't do that is to leave as much of the implementation as possible in the hands of the free market, while still achieving the electric vehicle roll-out goals. It's pretty much the same thing as CAFE regulations, which mandate the fleet fuel efficiency, but let the car companies decide how to adjust models and prices to achieve the overall average.
It is an approach that is strongly advocated by free-market-oriented (ie: right wing) policy analysts. The sound-bites against it you hear from the right are not genuine objection to the practice as opposed to other means of achieving the same roll-out goals, they are API calls; programming you to go onto social network sites and bitch about guv'mint regyuh-lashun.
I question your premise that the existence of something that couples users to YouTube equates to a blanket condemnation of the service as evil and exploitative.
Well, my goodness. No wonder we got off on the wrong foot, then. I didn't intend to make a blanket condemnation of YouTube as evil and exploitative. Look at my.sig.
The above-mentioned daughter has a YouTube account to which she posts videos, so you could declare she was "coupled" to the service,
That's not too bad. It's a really weak example, but it is one. It is also arguably a necessary part of the service, so it's not a very good example for illuminating the case. But you are right; creating a user account is a very small barrier to entry for competition. Technically it is an example of how YouTube as a stand-alone video distribution service is not in an ideal free market, but there are much better examples.
Let's try a different approach; do you believe that net neutrality regulation could bring us closer to the theoretical free market?
It's not. Nor to Facebook. Or even, to a much lesser extent, Slashdot. Many, maybe most, major network services have integrated aspects that create a barrier to competition which is not directly related to the quality of their core service.
It's not even necessarily an entirely bad thing in and of itself. Like monopolies, the problem is not the market situation itself, but the potential for abuse that comes with it. It is that potential that YouTube is attempting to exploit by coupling YouTube privileges to accepting a music service contract.
I'm not seeing the closed market you are describing, at least with respect to YouTube.
I don't believe you have tried. You sound pretty intelligent. If you really want to discuss this, give me something. Show me that you can at least make one attempt to see something that couples users to YouTube. If you try, you will be able to identify at least one thing that brings back repeat users that is not related to the quality of YouTube as a stand-alone video distribution service.
I'm not going to bicker with someone who doesn't want to see.
Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.
Yes, it should be, but surely you have noticed that YouTube doesn't compete like a stand-alone video distribution service in a free market. YouTube has a bunch of features that couple users to it. That coupling gives YouTube a partially closed market.
You are right that in a free market there would be no problem here. But we don't have one. As you seem to be a fan of the free market, perhaps the next question on your mind should be what we can do to address the flaw in the market to create a closer practical approximation of the theoretical ideal.
That is, of course, assuming you truly care about the free market, and are not just wielding the term to distract readers from a dogmatic and irrational belief in laissez faire.
A kook is someone that just posts their idiotic opinions on websites. This guy is a kook.
No, kook is still a value judgment, much like calling his opinions idiotic. They may be so -- I even think they are -- but focusing on that aspect of this story is sensationalism, not thinking. It is better left to the drooling mouth breathers who think Jerry Springer is hard hitting journalism. Like calling Hitler a madman, it may be true, but it is shallow and has no place in substantive discussion.
A radical is someone who acts on their beliefs.
Wrong. A radical who acts on their beliefs (in the sense I think you are implying) is a specific subtype of radical, "violent extremist."
Using the term "martyr" or "kook" is a judgment of merit. I agree with the latter, he's batshit looney, but it's not objective. Casting aspersions is all well and good in the popular media, but aren't we here to try to scratch a little deeper? Fine, he's a shitbag who's trying to get his ten minutes of fame and maybe ought to be back behind bars. But is he really the interesting part of the story in any sense other than lurid sensationalism?
What we sane and self-aware citizens should be asking ourselves is not whether a lowlife deserves to be treated like scum -- of course he does, like terrorists deserve to be assassinated and child abusers deserve to be beaten. The question for us is whether we should do what we did -- not because he deserves better, but because we may have done something that is beneath us.
Why Bitcoin and not Dogecoin (or any other e-currency) ?
My guess would be he wanted to use the one with the most penetration, because his real objective (or at least a simultaneous objective) is to do a little crowdbusking.
As a side note; he may be little more than an irritating troll, but it will be interesting to see where this goes. Think of him as a walking, flaming, honeypot.
Re:Correction: Password length NOT shown
on
eBay Compromised
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the update, diligent and forthright to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Second paragraph on the FWD.us page:
Our outdated immigration system does not meet Americaâ(TM)s workforce needs in a global economy. We have a system that tells talented immigrants that we don't welcome their contributions. It is a system that cannot keep the United States competitive in a global economy. The time is now for Congress to act on meaningful immigration reform that boosts the American economy and does right by American families.
This is not about amnesty for illegals, this is about H1B expansion.
Sorry but I for one NEED high calorie stuff else my weight would go down too much. It is not bad food as long as you do enough to compensate with physical activity. So in my case Mc&Co are doing me a service.
False; you only covered calories. It is bad food, even if you burn it off. The amount of salt, fat, and bad cholesterol in an average McDonald's meal is unhealthy no matter what.
My specific example of Olympians also most certainly holds -- I think you would be hard pressed to find any, let alone a significant number, whose diet consists of half the ratio of McDonald's food as the average European or American.
Finally, the question is not whether it is possible to not die while eating McDonald's. Negligence really is against the law, even if you don't understand why that is good (to me, good means GDP maximizing) for our society in the long run.
You may think that spouting populist rhetoric makes you seem clever. Mostly it makes you sound as though you are as simple as the masses it is meant to sway.
If obesity is a disability, and the legal definition of maiming is to disable or disfigure, will McDonald's advertising -- particularly when it materially misleads about health issues, like their Olympics sponsorship campaigns -- be ruled negligent maiming?
Not saying it should or shouldn't -- just raising the question.
nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says ... working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.
Just made me snarf coffee all over my keyboard.
(not that I don't find the Republicans more despicable than the Democrats, but the above is still very funny)
Spidey is a stingray detector app developed by the ACLU and MIT. This page is a page to get notified when it goes live. The source code is on GitHub. It works by comparing the towers you can see at any given moment against what you've seen before and data from the OpenCellID Project.
Who watches the watchers? I do.
The police weren't interested in "criminal intrusion", they were doing what is called a welfare check.
No they weren't. I talked to my neighbor, I know what she said to the police, and I recounted my story correctly. She is a LEO also, so she knows exactly what she said to them, and exactly what their interpretation was.
Why is it an issue that your neighbors care enough about you to call the cops when they see something highly unusual taking place and want someone to check on your welfare?
It isn't. That's why I used carefully crafted language in my post that does not find fault with her or the officers who performed their duty.
At the same time, I am a very capable risk analyst, and I have made my own assessment of the value to myself of the criminal intruder check -- which is what it was despite your attempt to re-invent the narrative -- versus the sanctity of my castle. You may have different priorities, but it would be quite presumptuous of you to assume that mine are the same.
Sounds to me like you have your own axe to grind. Try reading my post again without the hate-on.
If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.
A while back, I left my house and accidentally left my overhead garage door open. The door that leads from my garage to my house is usually unlocked, and it was that day. When I didn't return for a couple hours, my neighbor across the street grew concerned and called the police, who came and checked my house for intruders, then closed my garage door.
All well and good in practice, as I am one of those who has nothing to hide. But I also feel strongly about my privacy. I believe that what the police did was entirely lawful, but I would prefer it not happen; knowing the crime rate in my area, I would prefer to accept the risk of criminal intrusion than the violation of privacy.
Suppose a person in such a situation posted a sign on the door from the garage to the house that said, "Notice By Owner: I do not consent to any searches of these premises for any reason." Would that change the legality of the police entering the home? If they found evidence during the search, would it be admissible? If you were going to attempt to solve the issue, how would you word the sign (or other solution)?
I understand you can't give legal advice and I am only interested to hear your unofficial opinion.
I'm a old fogey. And I welcome new programming languages. Because the existing ones suck so much. ... With PHP as the major web language? With PERL is the major scripting language?
I too am an old fogey. But I welcome new programming languages because the existing ones are so good. If we had stopped with PHP, Perl, and Python, just because they are so good at what they do, we wouldn't have Groovy, Ruby, or Clojure -- which are good in new and interesting ways.
Bring forth every language anyone wishes to invent, and let the good ones rise to the top.
Hear! Hear! And keep using the "bad" ones too, to challenge your assumptions (well, maybe not COBOL).
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network,
Do health monitoring devices get priority access to electricity? Does the electric company get to decide which devices will be shut down first? Can they shut down your devices before they shut down your neighbor's, because you bought Sony instead of Samsung? Would it be good for the electric company to be allowed to negotiate priority access to electricity with the appliance manufacturers?
Net neutrality is about protecting the more important free market -- the free market in information -- by requiring the carriers to compete only on price and overall performance of their network.
"People took for granted that parents would understand [the benefits], that it was self-evident," said Michael Horn,
I'm sure they do. The benefits are self-evident. It is the people who have been advancing these programs who are lacking foresight, for not considering the costs.
The problem is not that these programs have no value, it is that the cost is large and not well understood, and that once built it is very hard to make these things go away. As a society we have not begun to seriously examine the threat of these massive databases. Recent big data research has shown us the approximate threat level: In terms of influence power, it is "very big, larger than even the researchers expected."
Just download this software, install it, and it'll work for your email client assume you're still using an email client and there's a plugin available for it, which there might not be. Otherwise you need to copy and paste and stuff, and... oh right, then there's also the whole issue of managing keys and keeping a backup copy safe. Most people don't back anything up.
The first automobiles didn't have keys, but people have learned to use and manage them. And for those keys you can't even download the management equipment, you have to go to a hardware store to get copies.
The problem is not that it is hard, the problem is that people don't realize the threat.
take iMessage's encryption for example. Do people using it know that their messages are encrypted? Probably not. Are they given a choice? No. Do they know that they're generating encryption keys? Probably not. Are they asked to manage their own encryption keys? No.
Is iMessage secure? No.
Apple CEO Tim Cook during his keynote said that around 130 million customers have purchased their first Apple device in the last twelve months states, "Many of these customers were switchers from Android,"
So, tell me, Tim, are you bad at math, or duplicitous? It is also true that many first time users of Android, nowadays, are switchers from iPhone. How can I know that without having any figures at hand? Simple: Said slightly differently: Many people who buy a smartphone today are on their second or later smartphone, and there are only two major smartphone OSs. If it is their first smartphone with OS A, it must be either their first smartphone, or they had a Windows phone (not many of those out there), or they switched from OS B. Simple math means many who use OS A for the first time switched from OS B.
So, Tim, are you saying neither you nor anyone who went over your speech could figure that math out, or are you saying you expect your audience won't catch it, and you'd try to put one over on them? Are you bad at math, or are you a used car salesman?
department officials were at pains to make it clear the LAPD doesn't intend to use the new hardware to keep watch from above over an unsuspecting public.
Ahh, well that completely sets my mind at ease. How could anyone doubt the integrity of the LAPD?
Rolliins is an excellent poet, I love his work. Worth noting, in this case that he does just as well at generalizing, in "I know you.".
I've known people like that. But I've known more who went through all that, and came out the other side as full of compassion and love as when they went in. Not that they never felt anger, or fear, or rejection, or even hate, but that it never consumed them, never defined them.
And I've known people who have led a charmed and charismatic life, loved by all around them, and have a core of darkness and loathing in them that is genuinely frightening.
So I think your Rollins post gets it right, that generalizing is flawed. But Rollins' "I know you" makes it clear that a compelling narrative can appear to present a general truth.
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
See Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[12] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.[13]
Thanks -- said what I came here to say. Well, except you said it better.
It would be much more honest to tax them directly instead of letting the auto industry act as an intermediary.
The reason they don't do that is to leave as much of the implementation as possible in the hands of the free market, while still achieving the electric vehicle roll-out goals. It's pretty much the same thing as CAFE regulations, which mandate the fleet fuel efficiency, but let the car companies decide how to adjust models and prices to achieve the overall average.
It is an approach that is strongly advocated by free-market-oriented (ie: right wing) policy analysts. The sound-bites against it you hear from the right are not genuine objection to the practice as opposed to other means of achieving the same roll-out goals, they are API calls; programming you to go onto social network sites and bitch about guv'mint regyuh-lashun.
I question your premise that the existence of something that couples users to YouTube equates to a blanket condemnation of the service as evil and exploitative.
Well, my goodness. No wonder we got off on the wrong foot, then. I didn't intend to make a blanket condemnation of YouTube as evil and exploitative. Look at my .sig.
The above-mentioned daughter has a YouTube account to which she posts videos, so you could declare she was "coupled" to the service,
That's not too bad. It's a really weak example, but it is one. It is also arguably a necessary part of the service, so it's not a very good example for illuminating the case. But you are right; creating a user account is a very small barrier to entry for competition. Technically it is an example of how YouTube as a stand-alone video distribution service is not in an ideal free market, but there are much better examples.
Let's try a different approach; do you believe that net neutrality regulation could bring us closer to the theoretical free market?
How is that different to iTunes?
It's not. Nor to Facebook. Or even, to a much lesser extent, Slashdot. Many, maybe most, major network services have integrated aspects that create a barrier to competition which is not directly related to the quality of their core service.
It's not even necessarily an entirely bad thing in and of itself. Like monopolies, the problem is not the market situation itself, but the potential for abuse that comes with it. It is that potential that YouTube is attempting to exploit by coupling YouTube privileges to accepting a music service contract.
I'm not seeing the closed market you are describing, at least with respect to YouTube.
I don't believe you have tried. You sound pretty intelligent. If you really want to discuss this, give me something. Show me that you can at least make one attempt to see something that couples users to YouTube. If you try, you will be able to identify at least one thing that brings back repeat users that is not related to the quality of YouTube as a stand-alone video distribution service.
I'm not going to bicker with someone who doesn't want to see.
Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.
Yes, it should be, but surely you have noticed that YouTube doesn't compete like a stand-alone video distribution service in a free market. YouTube has a bunch of features that couple users to it. That coupling gives YouTube a partially closed market.
You are right that in a free market there would be no problem here. But we don't have one. As you seem to be a fan of the free market, perhaps the next question on your mind should be what we can do to address the flaw in the market to create a closer practical approximation of the theoretical ideal.
That is, of course, assuming you truly care about the free market, and are not just wielding the term to distract readers from a dogmatic and irrational belief in laissez faire.
A kook is someone that just posts their idiotic opinions on websites. This guy is a kook.
No, kook is still a value judgment, much like calling his opinions idiotic. They may be so -- I even think they are -- but focusing on that aspect of this story is sensationalism, not thinking. It is better left to the drooling mouth breathers who think Jerry Springer is hard hitting journalism. Like calling Hitler a madman, it may be true, but it is shallow and has no place in substantive discussion.
A radical is someone who acts on their beliefs.
Wrong. A radical who acts on their beliefs (in the sense I think you are implying) is a specific subtype of radical, "violent extremist."
>> The government has created a martyr.
> No, they have created a kook.
No, they have created a radical.
Using the term "martyr" or "kook" is a judgment of merit. I agree with the latter, he's batshit looney, but it's not objective. Casting aspersions is all well and good in the popular media, but aren't we here to try to scratch a little deeper? Fine, he's a shitbag who's trying to get his ten minutes of fame and maybe ought to be back behind bars. But is he really the interesting part of the story in any sense other than lurid sensationalism?
What we sane and self-aware citizens should be asking ourselves is not whether a lowlife deserves to be treated like scum -- of course he does, like terrorists deserve to be assassinated and child abusers deserve to be beaten. The question for us is whether we should do what we did -- not because he deserves better, but because we may have done something that is beneath us.
Why Bitcoin and not Dogecoin (or any other e-currency) ?
My guess would be he wanted to use the one with the most penetration, because his real objective (or at least a simultaneous objective) is to do a little crowdbusking.
As a side note; he may be little more than an irritating troll, but it will be interesting to see where this goes. Think of him as a walking, flaming, honeypot.
Thanks for the update, diligent and forthright to do so.