I have been using this methodology for the last four years, purely for disaster recovery.
Daily incremental backups are done from my family's 5 systems to a RAIDZ3 volume on my FreeNAS server using rsync or Syncrify (a wrapper for rsync). This is scheduled between midnight and 7AM daily, although generally all backups are usually finished well before 2AM. The backup volume contains about 2.5 TB of data.
Then the backup volume is backed up to CrashPlan between 7AM and midnight. This is an incremental backup and usually completes by 11AM. Over the years I've needed to recover maybe a dozen files and everything worked as expected.
Moving from "CrashPlan for Home" to "CrashPlan for Small Business" will increase the cost to $120 per year. That's not a deal breaker.
There speaks someone who is totally clueless and has been radicalized by Alex Jones and his ilk.
I was brought up in a multicultural area of a large city. I had (and still have) friends who are Muslims, Jews and probably other religions. Guess what, they are no different from my Christian family. They may worship differently from me, but they have the same values and the same outlook on life. They certainly have no interest in changing the law to fit their beliefs or converting the country to their religion.
They go to work every day, they love their families, they give to charity, they have the same concerns as me, and they enjoy life in the community. In short, they are fully integrated and indistinguishable unless you look at the way they worship.
There are extremists of all faiths. Including Christians. The post I'm replying to is a prime example. He (or she) probably doesn't know any Muslims and is an avid reader of alt-right web sites spewing incorrect garbage - no different in their aims from the ISIS sites doing the same.
Hate is the enemy. The people who want to create a religious war are the enemy. These are the people who look for the lonely, the people who are easily persuaded, the people who are marginally ill mentally, the people who were brought up in households that advocated violence. They use them to foment more hate in the hope that a religious war will be the eventual result.
I've been with Fastmail since it was in beta in 2001. The company ONLY does email and associated services. This means they are focused on making it work correctly and users having a good features. I would never consider moving.
Like all hardware, disk drives have two states - failed and going to fail. Bitrot will also occur with long term storage, whether you notice or not.
A self-healing file system with substantial redundancy capabilities like ZFS is the obvious answer.
However, there are many ways to configure ZFS, and some configurations have better redundancy than others. A misconfigured system would be worse than useless because of the false sense of security. Exactly how many terabytes of data you have also matters for creating the best configuration at lowest cost. Be prepared to spend a little time learning about ZFS before jumping in.
Somehow you are not noticing that Hilary Clinton has won the popular vote. To be clear, more people in the country wanted Clinton to be president than wanted Trump to be president. Trump is the president-elect, no doubt about that, but he did not get a mandate from the people. He lost the popular vote.
I can't tell what was in the mind of the Founding Fathers when they set up the electoral vote system, but I would be surprised if they intended this to happen. Generally, elections are intended to determine the winner based on the number of votes for each candidate. In 2000 and 2016 that has not happened - both George Bush and Donald Trump won despite receiving fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.
If you are a politician (or work for a politician), never write anything that would look bad in a headline in the Washington Post or NY Times.
If you are a corporate executive, never refer to anything that might be illegal or immoral or unethical. Not even as a joking reference - words can be taken out of context.
For everyone, be aware that whatever you say will stay around until the end of the Internet and may be accessible by anyone or any organization.
I would still prefer the false positive - yes there's a chance that subsequent testing may cause a cancer (possible but very unlikely) and the false negative causes treatment to be delayed.
My first wife died of lung cancer. Her doctor diagnosed her initial symptoms as bronchitis and it was four months before the quack decided to send her to the hospital with pneumonia. Then the cancer was discovered and she died 16 months later. The type of lung cancer she had was unusual (non-small cell carcinoma) and is more treatable - that four months might have made a substantial different. We'll never know, of course.
I had a colonoscopy when I turned 50. It discovered a stage 3 adenocarcinoma in the ascending colon. Without a colonoscopy these are generally not found until the colon is blocked or it ruptures - either way the cancer has usually metastasized by this point and the live expectancy is of the order of 18 months to two years.
The day after the colonoscopy a cat scan confirmed the result (not that there was a doubt) and a week later the tumor was removed. The surgery was followed by 6 months of chemotherapy. That was 12 years ago.
A colonoscopy saved my life. It might save yours also. Man up and get it taken care of.
A false positive is much less of a problem than a false negative. One can cause some loss of sleep, the other can result in a failure to get early treatment and subsequent death.
If a positive result if presented to the patient as an indication that they should have further tests then the level of anxiety generated by the result can be managed.
The lower court decision will be affirmed with a 4-4 tie, however it applies only within the jurisdiction of the appeals court that heard the case and not to the country as a whole. Also such an affirmation will not set a precedent.
If the justices feel strongly on an issue they can set the case for re-argument when there is a full court.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
The more complex a system, the easier it is to disrupt. Last week we lost power one evening for a couple of hours and my young daughter didn't know what to do. She couldn't understand why nothing except her iPad would work. No TV, no computer, no Internet, no music, no texting, no contact with anyone not physically in her presence. But at least she could access the refrigerator and her room.
If, as suggested in the summary, "every light, every doorknob will be connected to the internet." then she wouldn't be able open a door or even enter or exit the house without approval from some server. Lack of power or a lack of connectivity would be a serious impediment to simply living in a house. Would all these things be controlled from a house server? Is everyone going to become a sysop? And think what a hacker could do with access to the house server. Or a burglar.
I don't think it was legally brilliant at all, because it wasn't legal. While many countries (such as the UK) created zones where foreigners were not permitted to reside, none except the USA created areas where their own citizens of a particular ethnicity were excluded. It could have been argued that this was permissible if Habeas Corpus had been suspended, but it was not.
That's the difference. American citizens of a specific race were barred from residing in the vast majority of the country. Nobody tried to intern the descendants of Italian, German, Austrian or other enemy immigrants. Only the Japanese suffered this fate, possibly because it was easy to identify them and so they became natural suspects.
Incidentally, many white people have some difficulty telling the difference between Chinese and Japanese features. However, the Chinese population apparently had no such difficulty as they were the most active in identifying Japanese Americans to the authorities, especially those who failed to report for internment.
That's incorrect. Japanese Americans were rumored to be spying against the USA, and the court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of the American citizens not to be interned.
However, the Solicitor General failed to not provide a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that stated there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies or passing information to the enemy.
In 1983, Korematsu's conviction for failing to report to for internment was overturned on the grounds that the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the court's decision.
It was against the Constitution to place American citizens of Japanese descent in interment camps without being convicted on any crime back in the second world war. That didn't stop it happening. The Supreme Court even said it was OK back in 1944, in possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.
The people who were held were unable to earn a living and were unable to pay outstanding income taxes or the taxes on their property. Even if they had the money they had no access to it. Their property was seized and sold as a result. Those that survived the camps with a minimum of food and no heath care had lost everything they had worked for by the time they were released after the war. Only a few suggested putting people of German or Italian descent in camps, and they were ignored.
It's a short step from identifying those of a particular religion to government discrimination in travel, jobs, housing or freedom.
It's very likely that if they had driven their vehicle at a police officer rather than Tesla security they would have been shot, and if they survived they would have been charged with attempted murder.
They were lucky that the Tesla security people either were not armed or chose not to shoot at them.
If this stream of 250 you speak of actually exists, why is Linus saying he's having problems finding people?
Are they of suitable quality - this isn't crappy application code. Are they thick skinned enough to be willing to put up with the legendary abuse from the LKML? Are they willing to work 7 days a week for little reward?
There are no generic manufacturers for Daraprim because of the low volumes sold. This startup bought the exclusive right to sell the drug in the USA, which is why they can jack up the price.
Other countries still sell it for low prices. The cost of the drug in Canada, or the UK, or Mexico (if you trust their pharmacies) make a trip out of the country worthwhile.
Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.
Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.
Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.
The two women are identified "Miss A" and "Miss W" in Sweden to protect their identities.
On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to speak at a seminar partly arranged by "Miss A". He had met her before but he stayed at her apartment. They had sex on 14 August 2010.
At the seminar, Assange met "Miss W" and they had sex on 17 August 2010.
On 19 August 2010 the two women (who are friends) discovered that both of them had had sex with Assange. Up to this point neither had suggested that the sex was anything other than consensual, but that day they decided to contact a journalist and complain about their sexual encounters with Assange. The journalist insisted they contact the police and the two women went to the police together. They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual, which is rape in Swedish law. The two women were interviewed together by police and this allowed contamination of their evidence.
On 20 August 2010 a warrant was issued for Assange's arrest. On 21 August it was withdrawn by Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor. On 30 August, Assange was interviewed by police.
On 1 September 2010 a different prosecutor announced that she was reopening the investigation. This is not a normal procedure in Sweden. Furthermore, the prosecutor identified Assange to the press, which is against Swedish law. On 2 September she re-interviewed the complainants, but she did did not interview Assange, which is required within a week - she said this was not done because of a police officer being sick.
On 5 September 2010 a journalist reported that the two women did not want to proceed.
On 27 September 2010 Assange left Sweden with the agreement of the authorities.
On 18 November 2010 a court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November an international arrest warrant was issued. It was possible to interview Assange in the UK, as there is a mutual legal assistance agreement, but the prosecutor went for the arrest warrant instead.
That's where we stand at present. Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.
Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation. It's strange that both women claimed the same thing happened, but not until they had discovered they were sharing his favors.
It appears that the prosector has an agenda, but I have no idea why.
Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted. After the original complaint was filed, Assange was told he could leave Sweden, and so he went to the UK.
Then a Swedish prosecutor decided to reopen the case (exactly why has never been fully explained) and she wants him back in Sweden. For some reason it wasn't sufficient to interview him by phone or Skype, or by traveling to the UK. The prosecutor wants him in Sweden, to the point of issuing a European arrest warrant - not because he's been charged with anything, just because she wants to talk to him.
The whole thing seems quite strange. Sweden and the UK seem to be treating this as a major incident, even though the complainants have no interest in pursuing the case. In fact, the UK is complaining about the very high cost of watching the Ecuadorean embassy, which they reckon is over 15 million pounds so far.
You do realize that the only reason Clarkson was not fed is because he went drinking at a local pub after shooting was completed for the day. He arrived at his hotel after the restaurant was closed (but some people were still there chatting) and then blew up because there was no hot food for him.
Clarkson went on a 40 minute rant blaming a producer named Oisin Tymon. Clarkson called the producer lazy, told him he would make certain he lost his job, and used a racial slur describing him as a "lazy Irish cunt". All this in public in front of many people. Eventually he punched the producer, who was taken to the local hospital for treatment of facial injuries.
Clarkson's show also claimed a Tesla ran out of electric power after 55 miles when the claimed range was 200 miles. Tesla sued for libel but the lawsuit was dismissed because "rectification of inaccuracies is not a function of the courts"! However, the BBC admitted in court that the scene where the car ran out of power was faked. I hope Clarkson and friends don't have the same leeway with the truth under Amazon.
I ran my credit reports and there's nothing adverse on file at any of the three CRAs. The credit card company says it reports FICO scores from Experian. I contacted Experian and they said there's nothing that can be done as there's no adverse information on file that can be challenged. It's a mystery.
Perhaps the FTC site is out of date, or perhaps Experian is using different criteria than the FTC expects. I have no idea.
My policy is to never respond to emails that I receive if they are intended for other people. Here's why.
Back in 1998 I received an email intended for an attorney at a personal injury law firm. The firm's domain name is very similar to mine, the only difference was that they have a hyphen in their domain name and I don't. Being a good guy, I replied to the sender saying he had the wrong email address. That was a serious mistake.
I was accused by their office manager of hacking their emails. I told her that I don't control who sends email to my domain. She said I shouldn't open email not addressed to me, and the firm reported me to the US Attorney for their location for violating attorney/client privacy. Back then, the name, address and phone number of domain owners were always public so it was easy to discover my details.
The US Attorney passed the information to the FBI and I received a visit from two agents who were polite but computer clueless and somewhat concerned about what had happened. As I said, this was 1998 and the whole concept of malware and hacking was somewhat new and esoteric. I explained to the agents in detail what had happened, showed them my email setup and explained how email works. They thanked me and left saying they would be in touch. I haven't heard a word from either of them or anyone else about the complaint since.
However, this experience did change my attitude to incorrectly addressed email. I've received several emails for this law firm since then and I ignored them. These days a complaint of this nature would be ignored but why take the chance.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been using this methodology for the last four years, purely for disaster recovery.
Daily incremental backups are done from my family's 5 systems to a RAIDZ3 volume on my FreeNAS server using rsync or Syncrify (a wrapper for rsync). This is scheduled between midnight and 7AM daily, although generally all backups are usually finished well before 2AM. The backup volume contains about 2.5 TB of data.
Then the backup volume is backed up to CrashPlan between 7AM and midnight. This is an incremental backup and usually completes by 11AM. Over the years I've needed to recover maybe a dozen files and everything worked as expected.
Moving from "CrashPlan for Home" to "CrashPlan for Small Business" will increase the cost to $120 per year. That's not a deal breaker.
There speaks someone who is totally clueless and has been radicalized by Alex Jones and his ilk.
I was brought up in a multicultural area of a large city. I had (and still have) friends who are Muslims, Jews and probably other religions. Guess what, they are no different from my Christian family. They may worship differently from me, but they have the same values and the same outlook on life. They certainly have no interest in changing the law to fit their beliefs or converting the country to their religion.
They go to work every day, they love their families, they give to charity, they have the same concerns as me, and they enjoy life in the community. In short, they are fully integrated and indistinguishable unless you look at the way they worship.
There are extremists of all faiths. Including Christians. The post I'm replying to is a prime example. He (or she) probably doesn't know any Muslims and is an avid reader of alt-right web sites spewing incorrect garbage - no different in their aims from the ISIS sites doing the same.
Hate is the enemy. The people who want to create a religious war are the enemy. These are the people who look for the lonely, the people who are easily persuaded, the people who are marginally ill mentally, the people who were brought up in households that advocated violence. They use them to foment more hate in the hope that a religious war will be the eventual result.
I've been with Fastmail since it was in beta in 2001. The company ONLY does email and associated services. This means they are focused on making it work correctly and users having a good features. I would never consider moving.
Like all hardware, disk drives have two states - failed and going to fail. Bitrot will also occur with long term storage, whether you notice or not.
A self-healing file system with substantial redundancy capabilities like ZFS is the obvious answer.
However, there are many ways to configure ZFS, and some configurations have better redundancy than others. A misconfigured system would be worse than useless because of the false sense of security. Exactly how many terabytes of data you have also matters for creating the best configuration at lowest cost. Be prepared to spend a little time learning about ZFS before jumping in.
Steve Jobs always wanted Macs to be appliances that the user could not tinker with or modify. Now they have made it for him.
Unfortunately, systems designed that way don't reflect my needs at all.
Somehow you are not noticing that Hilary Clinton has won the popular vote. To be clear, more people in the country wanted Clinton to be president than wanted Trump to be president. Trump is the president-elect, no doubt about that, but he did not get a mandate from the people. He lost the popular vote.
I can't tell what was in the mind of the Founding Fathers when they set up the electoral vote system, but I would be surprised if they intended this to happen. Generally, elections are intended to determine the winner based on the number of votes for each candidate. In 2000 and 2016 that has not happened - both George Bush and Donald Trump won despite receiving fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.
If you are a politician (or work for a politician), never write anything that would look bad in a headline in the Washington Post or NY Times.
If you are a corporate executive, never refer to anything that might be illegal or immoral or unethical. Not even as a joking reference - words can be taken out of context.
For everyone, be aware that whatever you say will stay around until the end of the Internet and may be accessible by anyone or any organization.
I would still prefer the false positive - yes there's a chance that subsequent testing may cause a cancer (possible but very unlikely) and the false negative causes treatment to be delayed.
My first wife died of lung cancer. Her doctor diagnosed her initial symptoms as bronchitis and it was four months before the quack decided to send her to the hospital with pneumonia. Then the cancer was discovered and she died 16 months later. The type of lung cancer she had was unusual (non-small cell carcinoma) and is more treatable - that four months might have made a substantial different. We'll never know, of course.
I had a colonoscopy when I turned 50. It discovered a stage 3 adenocarcinoma in the ascending colon. Without a colonoscopy these are generally not found until the colon is blocked or it ruptures - either way the cancer has usually metastasized by this point and the live expectancy is of the order of 18 months to two years.
The day after the colonoscopy a cat scan confirmed the result (not that there was a doubt) and a week later the tumor was removed. The surgery was followed by 6 months of chemotherapy. That was 12 years ago.
A colonoscopy saved my life. It might save yours also. Man up and get it taken care of.
A false positive is much less of a problem than a false negative. One can cause some loss of sleep, the other can result in a failure to get early treatment and subsequent death.
If a positive result if presented to the patient as an indication that they should have further tests then the level of anxiety generated by the result can be managed.
The lower court decision will be affirmed with a 4-4 tie, however it applies only within the jurisdiction of the appeals court that heard the case and not to the country as a whole. Also such an affirmation will not set a precedent.
If the justices feel strongly on an issue they can set the case for re-argument when there is a full court.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
The more complex a system, the easier it is to disrupt. Last week we lost power one evening for a couple of hours and my young daughter didn't know what to do. She couldn't understand why nothing except her iPad would work. No TV, no computer, no Internet, no music, no texting, no contact with anyone not physically in her presence. But at least she could access the refrigerator and her room.
If, as suggested in the summary, "every light, every doorknob will be connected to the internet." then she wouldn't be able open a door or even enter or exit the house without approval from some server. Lack of power or a lack of connectivity would be a serious impediment to simply living in a house. Would all these things be controlled from a house server? Is everyone going to become a sysop? And think what a hacker could do with access to the house server. Or a burglar.
Or am I misunderstanding how this would all work?
I don't think it was legally brilliant at all, because it wasn't legal. While many countries (such as the UK) created zones where foreigners were not permitted to reside, none except the USA created areas where their own citizens of a particular ethnicity were excluded. It could have been argued that this was permissible if Habeas Corpus had been suspended, but it was not.
That's the difference. American citizens of a specific race were barred from residing in the vast majority of the country. Nobody tried to intern the descendants of Italian, German, Austrian or other enemy immigrants. Only the Japanese suffered this fate, possibly because it was easy to identify them and so they became natural suspects.
Incidentally, many white people have some difficulty telling the difference between Chinese and Japanese features. However, the Chinese population apparently had no such difficulty as they were the most active in identifying Japanese Americans to the authorities, especially those who failed to report for internment.
That's incorrect. Japanese Americans were rumored to be spying against the USA, and the court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of the American citizens not to be interned.
However, the Solicitor General failed to not provide a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that stated there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies or passing information to the enemy.
In 1983, Korematsu's conviction for failing to report to for internment was overturned on the grounds that the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the court's decision.
It was against the Constitution to place American citizens of Japanese descent in interment camps without being convicted on any crime back in the second world war. That didn't stop it happening. The Supreme Court even said it was OK back in 1944, in possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.
The people who were held were unable to earn a living and were unable to pay outstanding income taxes or the taxes on their property. Even if they had the money they had no access to it. Their property was seized and sold as a result. Those that survived the camps with a minimum of food and no heath care had lost everything they had worked for by the time they were released after the war. Only a few suggested putting people of German or Italian descent in camps, and they were ignored.
It's a short step from identifying those of a particular religion to government discrimination in travel, jobs, housing or freedom.
It's very likely that if they had driven their vehicle at a police officer rather than Tesla security they would have been shot, and if they survived they would have been charged with attempted murder.
They were lucky that the Tesla security people either were not armed or chose not to shoot at them.
If this stream of 250 you speak of actually exists, why is Linus saying he's having problems finding people?
Are they of suitable quality - this isn't crappy application code. Are they thick skinned enough to be willing to put up with the legendary abuse from the LKML? Are they willing to work 7 days a week for little reward?
There are no generic manufacturers for Daraprim because of the low volumes sold. This startup bought the exclusive right to sell the drug in the USA, which is why they can jack up the price.
Other countries still sell it for low prices. The cost of the drug in Canada, or the UK, or Mexico (if you trust their pharmacies) make a trip out of the country worthwhile.
Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.
Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.
Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.
The two women are identified "Miss A" and "Miss W" in Sweden to protect their identities.
On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to speak at a seminar partly arranged by "Miss A". He had met her before but he stayed at her apartment. They had sex on 14 August 2010.
At the seminar, Assange met "Miss W" and they had sex on 17 August 2010.
On 19 August 2010 the two women (who are friends) discovered that both of them had had sex with Assange. Up to this point neither had suggested that the sex was anything other than consensual, but that day they decided to contact a journalist and complain about their sexual encounters with Assange. The journalist insisted they contact the police and the two women went to the police together. They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual, which is rape in Swedish law. The two women were interviewed together by police and this allowed contamination of their evidence.
On 20 August 2010 a warrant was issued for Assange's arrest. On 21 August it was withdrawn by Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor. On 30 August, Assange was interviewed by police.
On 1 September 2010 a different prosecutor announced that she was reopening the investigation. This is not a normal procedure in Sweden. Furthermore, the prosecutor identified Assange to the press, which is against Swedish law. On 2 September she re-interviewed the complainants, but she did did not interview Assange, which is required within a week - she said this was not done because of a police officer being sick.
On 5 September 2010 a journalist reported that the two women did not want to proceed.
On 27 September 2010 Assange left Sweden with the agreement of the authorities.
On 18 November 2010 a court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November an international arrest warrant was issued. It was possible to interview Assange in the UK, as there is a mutual legal assistance agreement, but the prosecutor went for the arrest warrant instead.
That's where we stand at present. Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.
Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation. It's strange that both women claimed the same thing happened, but not until they had discovered they were sharing his favors.
It appears that the prosector has an agenda, but I have no idea why.
Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted. After the original complaint was filed, Assange was told he could leave Sweden, and so he went to the UK.
Then a Swedish prosecutor decided to reopen the case (exactly why has never been fully explained) and she wants him back in Sweden. For some reason it wasn't sufficient to interview him by phone or Skype, or by traveling to the UK. The prosecutor wants him in Sweden, to the point of issuing a European arrest warrant - not because he's been charged with anything, just because she wants to talk to him.
The whole thing seems quite strange. Sweden and the UK seem to be treating this as a major incident, even though the complainants have no interest in pursuing the case. In fact, the UK is complaining about the very high cost of watching the Ecuadorean embassy, which they reckon is over 15 million pounds so far.
You do realize that the only reason Clarkson was not fed is because he went drinking at a local pub after shooting was completed for the day. He arrived at his hotel after the restaurant was closed (but some people were still there chatting) and then blew up because there was no hot food for him.
Clarkson went on a 40 minute rant blaming a producer named Oisin Tymon. Clarkson called the producer lazy, told him he would make certain he lost his job, and used a racial slur describing him as a "lazy Irish cunt". All this in public in front of many people. Eventually he punched the producer, who was taken to the local hospital for treatment of facial injuries.
Clarkson's show also claimed a Tesla ran out of electric power after 55 miles when the claimed range was 200 miles. Tesla sued for libel but the lawsuit was dismissed because "rectification of inaccuracies is not a function of the courts"! However, the BBC admitted in court that the scene where the car ran out of power was faked. I hope Clarkson and friends don't have the same leeway with the truth under Amazon.
I pay off my cards every month - credit card debt is extremely expensive. That's not it.
I ran my credit reports and there's nothing adverse on file at any of the three CRAs. The credit card company says it reports FICO scores from Experian. I contacted Experian and they said there's nothing that can be done as there's no adverse information on file that can be challenged. It's a mystery.
Perhaps the FTC site is out of date, or perhaps Experian is using different criteria than the FTC expects. I have no idea.
My policy is to never respond to emails that I receive if they are intended for other people. Here's why.
Back in 1998 I received an email intended for an attorney at a personal injury law firm. The firm's domain name is very similar to mine, the only difference was that they have a hyphen in their domain name and I don't. Being a good guy, I replied to the sender saying he had the wrong email address. That was a serious mistake.
I was accused by their office manager of hacking their emails. I told her that I don't control who sends email to my domain. She said I shouldn't open email not addressed to me, and the firm reported me to the US Attorney for their location for violating attorney/client privacy. Back then, the name, address and phone number of domain owners were always public so it was easy to discover my details.
The US Attorney passed the information to the FBI and I received a visit from two agents who were polite but computer clueless and somewhat concerned about what had happened. As I said, this was 1998 and the whole concept of malware and hacking was somewhat new and esoteric. I explained to the agents in detail what had happened, showed them my email setup and explained how email works. They thanked me and left saying they would be in touch. I haven't heard a word from either of them or anyone else about the complaint since.
However, this experience did change my attitude to incorrectly addressed email. I've received several emails for this law firm since then and I ignored them. These days a complaint of this nature would be ignored but why take the chance.