"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
K, thanks, bye. Next time think before blaming rednecks, we tried to do the right thing for you guys a while back, and you went and changed what the war was about and then polluted history with your garbage.
Actually, I was thinking the same thing as I read the summary. The best I could think of was some sort of "bouncing betty" type proximity mines placed along the border that would "tag" immigrants that crossed the border outside of designated border crossings.
But then it dawned on me, replace the RFID chips in those mines with ball bearings, and the effectiveness would probably go up a bit, as far as completing the mission of the border guard, which is of course keeping unauthorized people out while allowing authorized people in.
I'd imagine a moat of flaming death could work too. On a serious note though, if America can spend billions on a foreign war against a nation that didn't even attack us, why can't they afford to build a 6ft thick, 20ft tall concrete wall along the length of the U.S.A.-Mexico border IF they feel it's such a necessity to keep these people from coming in to the country? I've never met an immigrant that wasn't grateful to be here, otoh I have met hundreds of Americans in my life that weren't and who I don't believe should be allowed to live here, I guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge of who can come in and who gets kicked out.
Simple solution, copyright your DNA sequence and then sue anyone that obtains it illegally for copyright infringement, since this is America you will win.
Seriously, the Bush bashing is getting old. It only works if you really expected something better from them in the first place. Can you honestly say that you do?
You mean can I honestly say that I expect the man elected to be the figurehead of my nation to be upright, honest, honorable, noble and forthcoming? Are you implying that I'm a fool for wanting a decent, caring, intelligent, thoughtful and just leader? Is it you contension that I'm ignorant for believing that the leader of the United States of America should not be making personal profits via his political posturing and foreign policy? Again I must ask, am I a fool for believing that my president wouldn't start a war in Iraq just so that he might be able to give his buddies some lucrative contracts in the middle east?
If the standards of Americans have fallen so much that they can't expect their leader will only act in their best interests, than I for one will welcome our facist overlords because as a nation, that's where we're heading. We deserve our freedom only as long as we're willing to fight for it and protect it, and wanting that freedom is paramount. Complacency is going to be the death of freedom. Relinguishing freedoms to government control under some supposed notion that they can do a better job of protecting them than you as an individual can entitles you to exactly what you get, no freedoms or liberties and a government that walks all over its people, fighting unpopular wars in foreign countries under false pretenses, spying on it's citizens, and lying about it the entire time.
Yea, I guess I am a fool for expecting that Mr. Bush was going to do his job.
Maybe I should have voted for Kelly Clarkson, more people voted for her than Bush and she'd probably do a better job to boot.
Then there's a simple solution, if say a "google" ever gets appraoched by these CEO's demanding money about this, or they notice the throttling some other way block ALL ip's belonging to those ISP's, or even better redirect to a site with a notice saying "Due to the actions of your ISP we are not going to allow you to use our service."
Now for Google this might not be such a grand idea, but imagine it was your bank, or your insurance agency, that would put me in a mood to switch ISP's very quickly.
While not the most elegant solution, I still DO NOT believe that the government of the United States, or any nation for that matter, has any right to legislate what can or cannot be done with regards to the internet. THAT is true net neutrality.
Agreed, but I think my point is being misunderstood. I'm not supporting this scheme, but I'm against what I feel would be uneccesary legislation. My major point is that anyone trying to use this scheme is doomed to failure, and if I'm wrong and this does succeed then American Consumers are dumber than I give them credit for. But like most things, a free market generally is pretty self regulating, if something is a good idea and makes sense to enough people, they will invest their money and time in it. If it's a bad idea and harms the consumer than the consumer would be idiotic to invest their money, time, and effort in to the idea.
"In the Z4 2.5i with manual shift, this unit delivers 0 to 60 mph in 7.1 sec. and achieves the amazing top speed of 146 mph. Its projected EPA mileage ratings are impressive too: 21-mpg city/28-mpg highway with the optional automatic transmission, 20/28 with the 5-speed manual." - http://www.bmwworld.com/models/z4/engines.htm
Just because your speed is limited by laws in your locality has nothing to do with the capabilities of the technology, any nerd should know that.
And again, I'll say that a BMW is a more reliable vehicle than a Kia any day, this is a personal bias but I'd like to see you prove me wrong with details regarding the lifespans of vehicles from both manufacturers.
See where we diagree is the level of competition these two companies would pose, as an analogy using a well understood market, automobiles, do you really think that BMW loses much business to Kia? The value of accross the board high-speed internet, vs. the value of cheap sometimes fast internet is such a disparity that they could almost be different markets, in the very least I feel they're different segments within the same market that have very little overlap (comapre current dial-up with current broadband, this will just fill a niche between the two markets, if it exists at all.) And before anyone cries censorship (which no one might, but wth.). It isn't nearly as bad for those people that choose this middle tier pricing scheme, they still have access to the data, just at much lower rates. Compare with nations like China, which completely block access to information rather than just throttling the rate at which you can access.
And anyone using this service, would doubtfully be the intended market for sites such as Wikipedia, kernel.org, etc. Most likely the people choosing this will be the Aunt Tilly's of the world, happily emailing on yahoo and hotmail at super-speeds. And those sites will pay their "extortion" bills through increased advertisements predictated by the ip addresses of the people actually using this service.
I know it's bad form to reply to one's self, but really the only "content providers" that I imagine would be willing to pay for an ISP's customers to view their message would be advertisers, and they've currently got a much cheaper alternative. spam.
I think you're greatly under estimating the consumer. The average person with decent internet access as it is has accepted that there is an X dollar amount that they must pay every month in order to maintain their connection.
For example, I pay Cox Communications each month and in return I get unlimited access to the web (well, as unlimited as my bandwidth allows). What your proposing (rather, what I'm going to pull from your comment) is that it won't be the well established companies that pioneer this method, they have too much at stake if they're the only one adopting this. It will have to be some start-up that tries to make it's way in to the market by offering low-cost high-speed internet. Now, you've got this ISP throttling some sites, and making others faster, how does this benefit the user? If I wanted to pay $9.95 a month for dog-slow internet, I'd still be using (for example) NetZero. Now what good is it to me the consumer if the only sites I can access at a decent broadband speed are "Microsoft.com" or "CNN.com", absolutely none.
Now perhaps there is a small sub-section of the general populace that would adopt this, but I think that in the end any company trying to use these tactics of moving the cost of service off of their customers on to the "content providers" will quickly realise, it ain't happening.
To coin a phrase "It just don't make sense." Also another major downfall these companies would have to look out for is just being "kicked off" the net by the major back-bone holders.
I dunno, I just see this as being more US-centric FUD, ooh the big bad companies are out to make money by "extorting" the "good guys", it's already being done, and I'm the one being extorted. Wake me up when I've got fiber to my house, a dedicated range of IPv6 addresses for every computer in my home and bandwidth that would make a script-kiddie nut himself all for less than $50 a month.
If they released an "OMG PONIES!" car in bright pink with bows, I think I'd have to get one just for the sheer balls that it took for them to release it.
Even cooler I tested the cryomodules when I was at TJNAF aka JLAB aka CEBAF as a student intern three years ago. It's cool to see that their nearing completion.
Your analogy fails, because of the nautre of P2P applications. It can be assumed, and most likely demonstrated in court, that when you began the download of the file that you knew that it was a copyrighted song belonging to the record company, there was never any indication that it was the record company giving it away for free. Hence the analogy of the record companies placing a "free" sticker on cd's in the store and arresting people on their way out fails. A closer analogy would be if I as a regular Joe put those stickers on there, and then you took them, knowing that it wasn't a legitimate offer, and that those CD's really weren't free (not to mention that the crime of shoplifting doesn't hurt the RIAA, just the store which has already paid their distributor for the merchandise in stock).
A closer analogy still would be an undercover police officer standing on a shady corner and waiting for someone to come up to him and say "Can I get $10 worth of crack" (searching for copyrighted file) And then making the transaction (in our analogy the download) and finally the arrest after the transaction has been completed (the lawsuit brought about by the RIAA.)
I have it, and am listening to it on my iPod, can I get a renewal on my geek card. It is set to run out in may (I got a girlfriend, so now I have to reapply every 6 months. Stupid geek bureaucracy!)
If it was targetted to a "Virtual Machine" that ran under these three operating systems, then it wouldn't necessarily incur any additional cost to develop...
Someone should really build something like that...
My intention wasn't racist or classist. I was solely hinting at the fact that like it or not the "majority" in America define themselves thusly and the "majority" are the victims of my scorn.
Please don't let it detract from what I was trying to say. I whole-heartedly agree with you and I would've been much wiser to use terminology such as "the majority of Americans" as this is what I meant.
Please forgive my error, and do not think less of my argument because of it. I am human, and do sometimes let "emotional" language pervade my "logical" arguments.
No, news is entertainment. They make there money just like every other television program in the form of advertising revenues. People don't watch the news to hear that 400 million people lived through yesterday in the United States, they'd much rather here about the few thousand that died when some radical fundamentalist took a stab at what they viewed as the "enemy" and knocked down two landmarks that they felt stood for everything wrong in the world.
In this sense, view the news for what it is, another media outlet viewing for your viewing time in an attempt to sell advertisements. People watch the news for the same reasons that they watch "Cops" or "American Idol", it's just the original reality TV and in this day and age where money moves people, one cannot have any faith that any news outlet is going to present all articles that deserve attention.
Did you care that some disabled woman named Terry Schiavo was caught up in a legal battle regarding whether or not she lives or dies? Yet this was somehow worthy of National News attention for several weeks. However, I don't wholly blame the media outlets, I place the blame squarely on middle-class white Americans, those that watch this type of bull-shit and prolong it's lifespan and continute to perpetuate sensationalist news in the face of something that might be more worthy of your attention. So what if Iran is developing the capability to have a civil nuclear program, there are people in my city that can't afford to eat. How about that Mr. Bush?
If you feel as I do, and are sick of there being nothing good on television (ie Firefly being cancelled and American Idol Judge Simon Cowell being give a contract with some hundreds of millions) then do the only thing you can as an individual, change the channel or turn the TV off. Go outside, read a book, go to a bar, the point is spend your money someplace else. And if noone else will, I'll thank you for it and I'll think of you whenever I see some piece of entertainment that was actually worth my time. (V for Vendetta comes to mind)
"In early 1883, the Liberty Head nickel was first struck for circulation. The first 5.4 million pieces struck contained the Roman numeral "V" on the reverse, but did not contain the word "CENTS". Con artists quickly noted this, as well as the fact that the coin was roughly the same size as a five-dollar gold coin, and began gold-plating the new nickels and attempting to pass them as gold pieces. [3] According to numismatic legend, one of the perpetrators of this fraud was a deaf-mute named Josh Tatum, whose name is allegedly the origin of the verb "joshing". Supposedly, Tatum was not convicted because, being unable to speak, he did not actually make any fraudulent verbal claims regarding the coins, but merely accepted the change handed to him by the storekeeper [4]. This tale, however, may be apocryphal [5]. Whatever the truth of the case, what is known is that the Mint decided to add the word "CENTS" to the reverse design of the Liberty Head nickel in the middle of the 1883 striking [6], and this change remained until the coin was discontinued."
At my school a lot of students work for the administration and campus police, if there was something horrible going on that they found out from facebook they would definately report it to their employers because often these students had these jobs to satisfy a sense of duty they felt to the college campus and to keeping it safe and efficient.
Before I begin, a brief introduction. I'm a member of a fraternity that in years past has run afoul of certain members of my schools administration, nothing terrible, but the end result being that we became unrecognized by greek life. This occured around 1998, and at the time we were a small chapter and nobody was really bugged by it. Since then we've done better with our recruiting and are again at a size where we've begun the process of being re-recognized with our campus' greek life; however, one of the major obstacles we had to overcome was our public image with the administration.
We realised, as I'm sure lots of college students eventaully will, that it's not just students on facebook, but rather anyone that can get an email address from the school, including campus police, administration, greek life, etc.
One of our brothers, notorious for his "liberal" views on drugs and alcohol (college kids do these things, even frat boys???) created a facebook group for our fraternity, and invited all the brothers to join. Several of whom were members of other groups with wonderful titles like "4:20 all day", "Keg stand team", "Party 24/7", you get the idea.
One day we recieved word from the administration that they were considering us for reinstatement on campus, however they strongly suggested we cleaned up our facebook profiles before we submitted our paperwork because, this person felt, that the image we were presenting of ourselves was not conducive to our being reinstated on campus.
I've heard worse horror stories where students have even been brought up on judicial charges for pictures posted to some facebook profiles.
Also employers who are alumnus of universities on facebook have begun using it as a tool for researching potential hires, all stuff to keep in mind, and nothing on the internet is private so be careful what sort of image you project about yourself. While it might make you seem cool now, in four years time you may be hating yourself or that person you really aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
a _Resolutions
From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virgini
K, thanks, bye. Next time think before blaming rednecks, we tried to do the right thing for you guys a while back, and you went and changed what the war was about and then polluted history with your garbage.
Actually, I was thinking the same thing as I read the summary. The best I could think of was some sort of "bouncing betty" type proximity mines placed along the border that would "tag" immigrants that crossed the border outside of designated border crossings.
But then it dawned on me, replace the RFID chips in those mines with ball bearings, and the effectiveness would probably go up a bit, as far as completing the mission of the border guard, which is of course keeping unauthorized people out while allowing authorized people in.
I'd imagine a moat of flaming death could work too. On a serious note though, if America can spend billions on a foreign war against a nation that didn't even attack us, why can't they afford to build a 6ft thick, 20ft tall concrete wall along the length of the U.S.A.-Mexico border IF they feel it's such a necessity to keep these people from coming in to the country? I've never met an immigrant that wasn't grateful to be here, otoh I have met hundreds of Americans in my life that weren't and who I don't believe should be allowed to live here, I guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge of who can come in and who gets kicked out.
So let the people own the pipes, problem solved.
Simple solution, copyright your DNA sequence and then sue anyone that obtains it illegally for copyright infringement, since this is America you will win.
Seriously, the Bush bashing is getting old. It only works if you really expected something better from them in the first place. Can you honestly say that you do?
You mean can I honestly say that I expect the man elected to be the figurehead of my nation to be upright, honest, honorable, noble and forthcoming? Are you implying that I'm a fool for wanting a decent, caring, intelligent, thoughtful and just leader? Is it you contension that I'm ignorant for believing that the leader of the United States of America should not be making personal profits via his political posturing and foreign policy? Again I must ask, am I a fool for believing that my president wouldn't start a war in Iraq just so that he might be able to give his buddies some lucrative contracts in the middle east?
If the standards of Americans have fallen so much that they can't expect their leader will only act in their best interests, than I for one will welcome our facist overlords because as a nation, that's where we're heading. We deserve our freedom only as long as we're willing to fight for it and protect it, and wanting that freedom is paramount. Complacency is going to be the death of freedom. Relinguishing freedoms to government control under some supposed notion that they can do a better job of protecting them than you as an individual can entitles you to exactly what you get, no freedoms or liberties and a government that walks all over its people, fighting unpopular wars in foreign countries under false pretenses, spying on it's citizens, and lying about it the entire time.
Yea, I guess I am a fool for expecting that Mr. Bush was going to do his job.
Maybe I should have voted for Kelly Clarkson, more people voted for her than Bush and she'd probably do a better job to boot.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, NSA wiretapping.
"It's great in America!" - If you work for a government contractor.
(i do)
Then there's a simple solution, if say a "google" ever gets appraoched by these CEO's demanding money about this, or they notice the throttling some other way block ALL ip's belonging to those ISP's, or even better redirect to a site with a notice saying "Due to the actions of your ISP we are not going to allow you to use our service."
Now for Google this might not be such a grand idea, but imagine it was your bank, or your insurance agency, that would put me in a mood to switch ISP's very quickly.
While not the most elegant solution, I still DO NOT believe that the government of the United States, or any nation for that matter, has any right to legislate what can or cannot be done with regards to the internet. THAT is true net neutrality.
Agreed, but I think my point is being misunderstood. I'm not supporting this scheme, but I'm against what I feel would be uneccesary legislation. My major point is that anyone trying to use this scheme is doomed to failure, and if I'm wrong and this does succeed then American Consumers are dumber than I give them credit for. But like most things, a free market generally is pretty self regulating, if something is a good idea and makes sense to enough people, they will invest their money and time in it. If it's a bad idea and harms the consumer than the consumer would be idiotic to invest their money, time, and effort in to the idea.
How do you figure?
i ng/kia-rio-1.4-16v-range-1004915.html
"In the Z4 2.5i with manual shift, this unit delivers 0 to 60 mph in 7.1 sec. and achieves the amazing top speed of 146 mph. Its projected EPA mileage ratings are impressive too: 21-mpg city/28-mpg highway with the optional automatic transmission, 20/28 with the 5-speed manual." - http://www.bmwworld.com/models/z4/engines.htm
"The top speed of 111mph is achieved courtesy of the 96bhp developed by this power unit. This too is better than most other 1.4-litre engines in this sector that typically average 75 to 80bhp." - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driv
Just because your speed is limited by laws in your locality has nothing to do with the capabilities of the technology, any nerd should know that.
And again, I'll say that a BMW is a more reliable vehicle than a Kia any day, this is a personal bias but I'd like to see you prove me wrong with details regarding the lifespans of vehicles from both manufacturers.
I say my analogy stands, and you're just a troll.
See where we diagree is the level of competition these two companies would pose, as an analogy using a well understood market, automobiles, do you really think that BMW loses much business to Kia? The value of accross the board high-speed internet, vs. the value of cheap sometimes fast internet is such a disparity that they could almost be different markets, in the very least I feel they're different segments within the same market that have very little overlap (comapre current dial-up with current broadband, this will just fill a niche between the two markets, if it exists at all.) And before anyone cries censorship (which no one might, but wth.). It isn't nearly as bad for those people that choose this middle tier pricing scheme, they still have access to the data, just at much lower rates. Compare with nations like China, which completely block access to information rather than just throttling the rate at which you can access.
And anyone using this service, would doubtfully be the intended market for sites such as Wikipedia, kernel.org, etc. Most likely the people choosing this will be the Aunt Tilly's of the world, happily emailing on yahoo and hotmail at super-speeds. And those sites will pay their "extortion" bills through increased advertisements predictated by the ip addresses of the people actually using this service.
I know it's bad form to reply to one's self, but really the only "content providers" that I imagine would be willing to pay for an ISP's customers to view their message would be advertisers, and they've currently got a much cheaper alternative. spam.
I think you're greatly under estimating the consumer. The average person with decent internet access as it is has accepted that there is an X dollar amount that they must pay every month in order to maintain their connection.
For example, I pay Cox Communications each month and in return I get unlimited access to the web (well, as unlimited as my bandwidth allows). What your proposing (rather, what I'm going to pull from your comment) is that it won't be the well established companies that pioneer this method, they have too much at stake if they're the only one adopting this. It will have to be some start-up that tries to make it's way in to the market by offering low-cost high-speed internet. Now, you've got this ISP throttling some sites, and making others faster, how does this benefit the user? If I wanted to pay $9.95 a month for dog-slow internet, I'd still be using (for example) NetZero. Now what good is it to me the consumer if the only sites I can access at a decent broadband speed are "Microsoft.com" or "CNN.com", absolutely none.
Now perhaps there is a small sub-section of the general populace that would adopt this, but I think that in the end any company trying to use these tactics of moving the cost of service off of their customers on to the "content providers" will quickly realise, it ain't happening.
To coin a phrase "It just don't make sense." Also another major downfall these companies would have to look out for is just being "kicked off" the net by the major back-bone holders.
I dunno, I just see this as being more US-centric FUD, ooh the big bad companies are out to make money by "extorting" the "good guys", it's already being done, and I'm the one being extorted. Wake me up when I've got fiber to my house, a dedicated range of IPv6 addresses for every computer in my home and bandwidth that would make a script-kiddie nut himself all for less than $50 a month.
You have much more success genereating a localized EMP to just fry the ECU...
Because of goats. It's goats' milk, not cow milk.
If they released an "OMG PONIES!" car in bright pink with bows, I think I'd have to get one just for the sheer balls that it took for them to release it.
Even cooler I tested the cryomodules when I was at TJNAF aka JLAB aka CEBAF as a student intern three years ago. It's cool to see that their nearing completion.
Your analogy fails, because of the nautre of P2P applications. It can be assumed, and most likely demonstrated in court, that when you began the download of the file that you knew that it was a copyrighted song belonging to the record company, there was never any indication that it was the record company giving it away for free. Hence the analogy of the record companies placing a "free" sticker on cd's in the store and arresting people on their way out fails. A closer analogy would be if I as a regular Joe put those stickers on there, and then you took them, knowing that it wasn't a legitimate offer, and that those CD's really weren't free (not to mention that the crime of shoplifting doesn't hurt the RIAA, just the store which has already paid their distributor for the merchandise in stock).
A closer analogy still would be an undercover police officer standing on a shady corner and waiting for someone to come up to him and say "Can I get $10 worth of crack" (searching for copyrighted file) And then making the transaction (in our analogy the download) and finally the arrest after the transaction has been completed (the lawsuit brought about by the RIAA.)
But what do I know, I'm just a kid.
I have it, and am listening to it on my iPod, can I get a renewal on my geek card. It is set to run out in may (I got a girlfriend, so now I have to reapply every 6 months. Stupid geek bureaucracy!)
If it was targetted to a "Virtual Machine" that ran under these three operating systems, then it wouldn't necessarily incur any additional cost to develop...
Someone should really build something like that...
My intention wasn't racist or classist. I was solely hinting at the fact that like it or not the "majority" in America define themselves thusly and the "majority" are the victims of my scorn.
Please don't let it detract from what I was trying to say. I whole-heartedly agree with you and I would've been much wiser to use terminology such as "the majority of Americans" as this is what I meant.
Please forgive my error, and do not think less of my argument because of it. I am human, and do sometimes let "emotional" language pervade my "logical" arguments.
No, news is entertainment. They make there money just like every other television program in the form of advertising revenues. People don't watch the news to hear that 400 million people lived through yesterday in the United States, they'd much rather here about the few thousand that died when some radical fundamentalist took a stab at what they viewed as the "enemy" and knocked down two landmarks that they felt stood for everything wrong in the world.
In this sense, view the news for what it is, another media outlet viewing for your viewing time in an attempt to sell advertisements. People watch the news for the same reasons that they watch "Cops" or "American Idol", it's just the original reality TV and in this day and age where money moves people, one cannot have any faith that any news outlet is going to present all articles that deserve attention.
Did you care that some disabled woman named Terry Schiavo was caught up in a legal battle regarding whether or not she lives or dies? Yet this was somehow worthy of National News attention for several weeks. However, I don't wholly blame the media outlets, I place the blame squarely on middle-class white Americans, those that watch this type of bull-shit and prolong it's lifespan and continute to perpetuate sensationalist news in the face of something that might be more worthy of your attention. So what if Iran is developing the capability to have a civil nuclear program, there are people in my city that can't afford to eat. How about that Mr. Bush?
If you feel as I do, and are sick of there being nothing good on television (ie Firefly being cancelled and American Idol Judge Simon Cowell being give a contract with some hundreds of millions) then do the only thing you can as an individual, change the channel or turn the TV off. Go outside, read a book, go to a bar, the point is spend your money someplace else. And if noone else will, I'll thank you for it and I'll think of you whenever I see some piece of entertainment that was actually worth my time. (V for Vendetta comes to mind)
I thought it was the liberty head nickel that looked like the $5 US Gold coin...wikipedia seems to agree. From the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Head_nickel
"In early 1883, the Liberty Head nickel was first struck for circulation. The first 5.4 million pieces struck contained the Roman numeral "V" on the reverse, but did not contain the word "CENTS". Con artists quickly noted this, as well as the fact that the coin was roughly the same size as a five-dollar gold coin, and began gold-plating the new nickels and attempting to pass them as gold pieces. [3] According to numismatic legend, one of the perpetrators of this fraud was a deaf-mute named Josh Tatum, whose name is allegedly the origin of the verb "joshing". Supposedly, Tatum was not convicted because, being unable to speak, he did not actually make any fraudulent verbal claims regarding the coins, but merely accepted the change handed to him by the storekeeper [4]. This tale, however, may be apocryphal [5]. Whatever the truth of the case, what is known is that the Mint decided to add the word "CENTS" to the reverse design of the Liberty Head nickel in the middle of the 1883 striking [6], and this change remained until the coin was discontinued."
At my school a lot of students work for the administration and campus police, if there was something horrible going on that they found out from facebook they would definately report it to their employers because often these students had these jobs to satisfy a sense of duty they felt to the college campus and to keeping it safe and efficient.
Before I begin, a brief introduction. I'm a member of a fraternity that in years past has run afoul of certain members of my schools administration, nothing terrible, but the end result being that we became unrecognized by greek life. This occured around 1998, and at the time we were a small chapter and nobody was really bugged by it. Since then we've done better with our recruiting and are again at a size where we've begun the process of being re-recognized with our campus' greek life; however, one of the major obstacles we had to overcome was our public image with the administration.
We realised, as I'm sure lots of college students eventaully will, that it's not just students on facebook, but rather anyone that can get an email address from the school, including campus police, administration, greek life, etc.
One of our brothers, notorious for his "liberal" views on drugs and alcohol (college kids do these things, even frat boys???) created a facebook group for our fraternity, and invited all the brothers to join. Several of whom were members of other groups with wonderful titles like "4:20 all day", "Keg stand team", "Party 24/7", you get the idea.
One day we recieved word from the administration that they were considering us for reinstatement on campus, however they strongly suggested we cleaned up our facebook profiles before we submitted our paperwork because, this person felt, that the image we were presenting of ourselves was not conducive to our being reinstated on campus.
I've heard worse horror stories where students have even been brought up on judicial charges for pictures posted to some facebook profiles.
Also employers who are alumnus of universities on facebook have begun using it as a tool for researching potential hires, all stuff to keep in mind, and nothing on the internet is private so be careful what sort of image you project about yourself. While it might make you seem cool now, in four years time you may be hating yourself or that person you really aren't.
Apple anyone? was it not just a few years ago the Gates was pictured towering above Jobs on a huge screen helping to save Apple's ass from the fire.