Growing up with bikers (I'm most certainly not, by my dad is), I can say that even the roughest bikers generally would accede to the cops. They'd rather beat the rap on technicalities than have the cops file resisting arrest or failure to stop. The Mongols will fight other gangs, but trying to get into a war with the cops is a losing proposition. In the current case, I'm sure they've already sent out a signal to those still on the streets to hide their affiliations for the moment, and let the legal process go through to determine what happens with the logo. They're criminal, but they're also pragmatic and not stupid.
Actually, they did file lawsuits over misappropriation of the trademark. They would sue shops that sold the patches, for example, and did win some money (not sure if they were out-of-court settlements or a result of court victories). No point in spending the money to get the trademark if you're not going to defend it in court. Besides, you get no money from a dead guy.
You had to obtain the shirt with the logo somehow. Even if you got it for free, that would be an unsanctioned use and dilution of the trademark, and because you accepted it, you participated in the trade (especially if you paid for it), and therefore would be a party to the infringing action.
My experience with hard drives is that they generally either fail fast (like in the first 30 days) or after a few years. I've only had a small fraction fail in between. I tend to not trust a drive completely until it's been operational for at least a couple of months.
Treaties are approved by the Senate, not the states, and yes, there is a treaty (actually a series of treaties and annexes, I think) involved in joining the WTO. The president approves, but the Senate must consent.
Treaties occupy a spot between the Constitution and statutory law. Law must conform to adopted treaties, but treaty language can be overridden by the Constitution.
(I think recently some chemical weapons were found?)
They were just items that had been buried during the Iran-Iraq war and were long past their shelf life even if properly stored. No one seriously used them as proof.
That might be incredibly difficult to do. It would require either that the gambling sites collect SSNs (did they already?), or taxing the profits of companies not actually in the US. But I'm not sure jurisdiction would be there for the IRS to monitor such things, and sanctions might still be brought.
I believe the issue was largely that it blocked most online gambling but left online bets on horse-racing intact. This was deemed discriminatory. Had the US outlawed all online gambling, it would likely not have been subject to sanction.
One could create a filter to zero in on a specific emitter. IIUC, TFA's mechanism records a broad spectrum, and then filters through that looking for certain properties. For low-cost devices, there will probably be enough variance within a set of devices to be able to filter out surrounding systems and lock into just the one that you want.
Your attempt at being funny fails. The abbreviation "nm" has long been a standard for nautical miles, too. It's not great range for an airplane (a Cessna 172 can pull 600nm without much difficulty), but it's a good first start.
Besides, we'd be calling you immediately, since it would be flying 400 billionths of a meter up, many times higher than your benchmark.
At least the new Facebook gave a chance to look at it to see if you liked it. Those who wished could express an opinion on it, which may or may not have gotten attention from developers. But the notice and first look kind of thing is nice to have, even if it will eventually be forced on you.
I'm one of those who had to have multiple profiles, and the reasoning for it is evident when I try to use the new profile system. I'm one of those who got into Yahoo's chat service early, well before there was even an IM client. I was there in the first couple of days, possibly on the very first day, and remembered being logged into the system on occasions when I was the only person in the system (they would list all users online at one point, and as the night went on, the number of users dropped).
Unfortunately for me, at that time, Yahoo allowed spaces in the names, and I took advantage of this. They stopped allowing this a little while after the IM client came out. Every time they make a major change to their services, they seem to hope that those few of us that still have such a name have stopped using it. (The old profiling system was always a little quirky with my primary account name, so I created a profile with an alias that had the same letters but with a hyphen instead of the space.) Each time, I have to open a support request and wait a week or so while they sort it out. It looks like I have to do it again here.
Sony isn't a monopoly. They've always had competition for their gaming consoles. They're one of four major music labels. There are plenty of other movie companies. Their electronics division operates with tight profit margins because of the other players in the field.
Large corporation with lots of fingers in lots of bowls of pudding? Sure. But a monopoly? Not even close.
Much of it is about infecting systems with malware to steal information available through it (passwords, account numbers, credit cards, etc.), and then spreading those infections further to gather more information. That identity information is then sold around (profit for the obtainers and sellers), and used to illegally purchase items (profit for the buyers).
However, as noted in a post below, there are a number of scammers out there happy to use spam to get their quick buck and then disappear. Unfortunately, there are also some gullible merchants that think that by spamming their information to a few million people, they'll build up a customer base. What they often don't realize is that their business may well attract a stigma that's difficult or impossible to leave behind later.
They did it on a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. The president has the power to veto bills, not sections of bills, even if Congress wishes to provide this ability. It preserves separation of powers.
Now, if we can get them to use strict interpretations through the remainder of their case load...
It's the Laffer curve. Lower taxes allow the economy to flourish, and tax receipts go up. It worked in the 1980s -- taxes collected ran well ahead of inflation. The catch is that it only works to a point.
There's a range where you can lower taxes and increase revenues. At the same time, there's a range where you can increase taxes and increase revenues. The real problem is that it's very hard to accurately determine which part of the curve you're on. We could be right on the perfect spot right now, which means that both candidates' plans will result in lower tax revenues than would otherwise happen.
There are other problems as well. You can't just raise taxes and have more income. The economy is a lot more complex than that. Raise taxes too much, and either those able to will hide them or the economy will sour, and then capital gains tax collections go down. There are other ways that the rich can mess with the numbers, including the use of trusts, charitable contributions, and overseas investments. None of these are inherently bad (the first is becoming increasingly common in middle class families), but they can be used to mask the true income.
There's a segment of I-5 between about Lake Forest and I-805 just north of San Diego where my mileage is significantly higher than usual, and I believe it's due to the drafting that occurs there. The traffic is fairly densely packed in that area, but all the lanes are moving at about the same 75mph speed. I can drive a constant 75mph on other stretches of highway, but I always pick up about 3-5 miles per gallon on that San Diego run.
I-15 around Highway 395 is similar. I always have to remember to get into the right lane for the 395 exit or else I risk shooting past it. It's not uncommon for traffic there to run 90mph (and sometimes higher) across all lanes.
Yes, I know about OSINT. It still doesn't replace SIGINT, which cannot replace HUMINT. They're all interlocking pieces of the intelligence realm. HUMINT is more expensive than OSINT, and SIGINT is more expensive than HUMINT. Costs for all of them reach points of diminishing returns. A satellite that shows movements in real time at 1m resolution is better than nothing. Improving that to.5m may cost ten times as much but deliver only five times the value. Improving it to.1m may cost 100 times as much but deliver only 20 times the value.
Any good intelligence network makes use of everything that it can, whether newspapers, forum posts, criminal contacts, or radio intercepts. All of it is important.
I'm actually well aware of how intelligence works. Merely cultivating contacts is an arduous process, because pushing it too fast can cause them to become suspicious and either stop talking to or actively turn on the recruiter. Some are eager to provide what the recruiter wants, and some take years to provide any useful information.
Your 80/20 assertion is at least partially incorrect, because if it were, the US would have been far less worried about Soviet space program in the later part of the 1960s, and we'd be spending less effort protecting certain sensitive technologies from getting out to various other entities. We wouldn't spend billions on the NRO, and NSA wouldn't need to keep upgrading their SIGINT capabilities each year.
There are situations where you have to interface with informants that are part of the entity being watched, and some of those informants aren't people with whom the US government wants their dealings public. Congress had a small fit about that in the 1990s, and it made life difficult for field agents.
I seem to recall that much of this was gutted by Congress in the 1990s when they didn't want intelligence operatives paying off criminals for information, on the risk that the money might be tied back to the United States. This severely nerfed the ability of the CIA (among others) to gather HUMINT, as paid informants were a significant source of the information required to infiltrate the groups in the first place. I don't recall if this was ever overturned, though.
Of course not. And neither major-party presidential hopeful is going to change it, either. We're still going to get stupid hassles from the TSA, we're still going to get the watch list filled with pointless entries based on the name of someone who might have been seen with someone who was linked to someone who claimed to have been involved in a shooting in North Ireland.
I would seriously consider voting for either one that came forward and promised to cut TSA's authority and streamline the process, getting back to only those people who are basically confirmed problems being on the list, no matter what their views might be on Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, or offshore drilling.
Slashdot Mirror
Growing up with bikers (I'm most certainly not, by my dad is), I can say that even the roughest bikers generally would accede to the cops. They'd rather beat the rap on technicalities than have the cops file resisting arrest or failure to stop. The Mongols will fight other gangs, but trying to get into a war with the cops is a losing proposition. In the current case, I'm sure they've already sent out a signal to those still on the streets to hide their affiliations for the moment, and let the legal process go through to determine what happens with the logo. They're criminal, but they're also pragmatic and not stupid.
Actually, they did file lawsuits over misappropriation of the trademark. They would sue shops that sold the patches, for example, and did win some money (not sure if they were out-of-court settlements or a result of court victories). No point in spending the money to get the trademark if you're not going to defend it in court. Besides, you get no money from a dead guy.
I think France has similar laws, and Austria may, too.
You had to obtain the shirt with the logo somehow. Even if you got it for free, that would be an unsanctioned use and dilution of the trademark, and because you accepted it, you participated in the trade (especially if you paid for it), and therefore would be a party to the infringing action.
My experience with hard drives is that they generally either fail fast (like in the first 30 days) or after a few years. I've only had a small fraction fail in between. I tend to not trust a drive completely until it's been operational for at least a couple of months.
Treaties are approved by the Senate, not the states, and yes, there is a treaty (actually a series of treaties and annexes, I think) involved in joining the WTO. The president approves, but the Senate must consent.
Treaties occupy a spot between the Constitution and statutory law. Law must conform to adopted treaties, but treaty language can be overridden by the Constitution.
They were just items that had been buried during the Iran-Iraq war and were long past their shelf life even if properly stored. No one seriously used them as proof.
That might be incredibly difficult to do. It would require either that the gambling sites collect SSNs (did they already?), or taxing the profits of companies not actually in the US. But I'm not sure jurisdiction would be there for the IRS to monitor such things, and sanctions might still be brought.
I believe the issue was largely that it blocked most online gambling but left online bets on horse-racing intact. This was deemed discriminatory. Had the US outlawed all online gambling, it would likely not have been subject to sanction.
Apparently, you found more water after turning the power back on.
[bender]"Heheheheh... Lightweights! Oh, wait... Chlorine."[/bender]
Isn't most of your cuisine based on dares anyway?
One could create a filter to zero in on a specific emitter. IIUC, TFA's mechanism records a broad spectrum, and then filters through that looking for certain properties. For low-cost devices, there will probably be enough variance within a set of devices to be able to filter out surrounding systems and lock into just the one that you want.
Your attempt at being funny fails. The abbreviation "nm" has long been a standard for nautical miles, too. It's not great range for an airplane (a Cessna 172 can pull 600nm without much difficulty), but it's a good first start.
Besides, we'd be calling you immediately, since it would be flying 400 billionths of a meter up, many times higher than your benchmark.
At least the new Facebook gave a chance to look at it to see if you liked it. Those who wished could express an opinion on it, which may or may not have gotten attention from developers. But the notice and first look kind of thing is nice to have, even if it will eventually be forced on you.
I'm one of those who had to have multiple profiles, and the reasoning for it is evident when I try to use the new profile system. I'm one of those who got into Yahoo's chat service early, well before there was even an IM client. I was there in the first couple of days, possibly on the very first day, and remembered being logged into the system on occasions when I was the only person in the system (they would list all users online at one point, and as the night went on, the number of users dropped).
Unfortunately for me, at that time, Yahoo allowed spaces in the names, and I took advantage of this. They stopped allowing this a little while after the IM client came out. Every time they make a major change to their services, they seem to hope that those few of us that still have such a name have stopped using it. (The old profiling system was always a little quirky with my primary account name, so I created a profile with an alias that had the same letters but with a hyphen instead of the space.) Each time, I have to open a support request and wait a week or so while they sort it out. It looks like I have to do it again here.
Sony isn't a monopoly. They've always had competition for their gaming consoles. They're one of four major music labels. There are plenty of other movie companies. Their electronics division operates with tight profit margins because of the other players in the field.
Large corporation with lots of fingers in lots of bowls of pudding? Sure. But a monopoly? Not even close.
Much of it is about infecting systems with malware to steal information available through it (passwords, account numbers, credit cards, etc.), and then spreading those infections further to gather more information. That identity information is then sold around (profit for the obtainers and sellers), and used to illegally purchase items (profit for the buyers).
However, as noted in a post below, there are a number of scammers out there happy to use spam to get their quick buck and then disappear. Unfortunately, there are also some gullible merchants that think that by spamming their information to a few million people, they'll build up a customer base. What they often don't realize is that their business may well attract a stigma that's difficult or impossible to leave behind later.
They did it on a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. The president has the power to veto bills, not sections of bills, even if Congress wishes to provide this ability. It preserves separation of powers.
Now, if we can get them to use strict interpretations through the remainder of their case load...
It's the Laffer curve. Lower taxes allow the economy to flourish, and tax receipts go up. It worked in the 1980s -- taxes collected ran well ahead of inflation. The catch is that it only works to a point.
There's a range where you can lower taxes and increase revenues. At the same time, there's a range where you can increase taxes and increase revenues. The real problem is that it's very hard to accurately determine which part of the curve you're on. We could be right on the perfect spot right now, which means that both candidates' plans will result in lower tax revenues than would otherwise happen.
There are other problems as well. You can't just raise taxes and have more income. The economy is a lot more complex than that. Raise taxes too much, and either those able to will hide them or the economy will sour, and then capital gains tax collections go down. There are other ways that the rich can mess with the numbers, including the use of trusts, charitable contributions, and overseas investments. None of these are inherently bad (the first is becoming increasingly common in middle class families), but they can be used to mask the true income.
There's a segment of I-5 between about Lake Forest and I-805 just north of San Diego where my mileage is significantly higher than usual, and I believe it's due to the drafting that occurs there. The traffic is fairly densely packed in that area, but all the lanes are moving at about the same 75mph speed. I can drive a constant 75mph on other stretches of highway, but I always pick up about 3-5 miles per gallon on that San Diego run.
I-15 around Highway 395 is similar. I always have to remember to get into the right lane for the 395 exit or else I risk shooting past it. It's not uncommon for traffic there to run 90mph (and sometimes higher) across all lanes.
Yes, I know about OSINT. It still doesn't replace SIGINT, which cannot replace HUMINT. They're all interlocking pieces of the intelligence realm. HUMINT is more expensive than OSINT, and SIGINT is more expensive than HUMINT. Costs for all of them reach points of diminishing returns. A satellite that shows movements in real time at 1m resolution is better than nothing. Improving that to .5m may cost ten times as much but deliver only five times the value. Improving it to .1m may cost 100 times as much but deliver only 20 times the value.
Any good intelligence network makes use of everything that it can, whether newspapers, forum posts, criminal contacts, or radio intercepts. All of it is important.
I'm actually well aware of how intelligence works. Merely cultivating contacts is an arduous process, because pushing it too fast can cause them to become suspicious and either stop talking to or actively turn on the recruiter. Some are eager to provide what the recruiter wants, and some take years to provide any useful information.
Your 80/20 assertion is at least partially incorrect, because if it were, the US would have been far less worried about Soviet space program in the later part of the 1960s, and we'd be spending less effort protecting certain sensitive technologies from getting out to various other entities. We wouldn't spend billions on the NRO, and NSA wouldn't need to keep upgrading their SIGINT capabilities each year.
There are situations where you have to interface with informants that are part of the entity being watched, and some of those informants aren't people with whom the US government wants their dealings public. Congress had a small fit about that in the 1990s, and it made life difficult for field agents.
I seem to recall that much of this was gutted by Congress in the 1990s when they didn't want intelligence operatives paying off criminals for information, on the risk that the money might be tied back to the United States. This severely nerfed the ability of the CIA (among others) to gather HUMINT, as paid informants were a significant source of the information required to infiltrate the groups in the first place. I don't recall if this was ever overturned, though.
Of course not. And neither major-party presidential hopeful is going to change it, either. We're still going to get stupid hassles from the TSA, we're still going to get the watch list filled with pointless entries based on the name of someone who might have been seen with someone who was linked to someone who claimed to have been involved in a shooting in North Ireland.
I would seriously consider voting for either one that came forward and promised to cut TSA's authority and streamline the process, getting back to only those people who are basically confirmed problems being on the list, no matter what their views might be on Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, or offshore drilling.