1. You say the problem doesn't exist. The problem there is, if anyone can just walk in to the poll and say, "I'm Steve Wozniak", and we never ask for any proof that they are who they say they are, how do you prove they aren't Steve Wozniak 3 days later? Add to this the well-documented voter registration quotas Acorn was running, and you have a political organization with a list of registered, fantasy voters. Photo ID, of course, means you can mess up the registered voter rolls all you want and it won't matter. Right now, it matters greatly.
2. I'm not aware of a Voter ID law that doesn't provide for appropriate ID for those who can't afford it, or some other means (like nursing home residents' medical records) as appropriate. That said, you can't open a bank account, get a credit card, drive, drink, get into clubs or buy medicine without photo ID. It seems highly unlikely any significant amount of people really don't have it anymore.
3. Actually, no one is looking for real people to not be able to vote. See point 1. But then, maybe you say this because you like it this way. (I'll leave out party affilitaion of those who don't like what's right/wrong being documented anywhere, to protect the guilty)
Gee, that's real interesting. There sure are a lot of pretty pictures in those articles, and a lot of Democrats-did kind of verbage. You'd almost think someone created those articles on purpose!
To quote Tom Hanks, I bet that's a coinke-dinkie.
And then to look at the budget articles from the mid-2000's...why, there's almost nothing there!
I'm sure it's just another big coinke-dinke. No one ever manipulates Wikipedia! Why, it's the gold standard for truth and objectivity!
In fact, even that RWNJ hotbed, the Huffington Post, acknowledges it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/house-gop-budget-plan-senate_n_1522393.html "Democrats haven't passed a budget since 2009, opting against weeklong floor debates that would have exposed party members to dozens of politically difficult votes or put themselves on record in favor of tax hikes or huge deficits."
But hey, enjoy your wikipedia edits. Propagandist.
Your argument on "securitizing debt already incurred" would make sense, under a different government.
In the USA, we have a law that limits the amount of debt the federal government may incur. This, of course, is revised regularly to accommodate the ongoing profligate spending by both parties.
The difference now is that we have no budget.
You see, normally the President gives the House of Representatives a budget, they discuss it, edit it, and issue a new bill outlining the spending they've agreed to, typically including an amendment to the law limiting debt. This package law (often called an omnibus budget) goes to the Senate, where they typically vote it down and create their own version. A "conference committee" is conviened which hammers out a compromise bill between the House and Senate, which each passes. This bill then goes to the President, which is signed or vetoed.
However, the President has given the House no budget in the last 3 years. (there was a very loose model which was never intended to be voted on, but got a 0-414 vote anyway) Budgets were presented to the Senate (incorrectly, because spending bills must originiate in the House) which failed 0-97 or 0-99.
The House has sent the Senate budgets, but the Democrats have the majority there, and their leadership refuses to allow the budgets to come to a vote or to be considered.
And so, with no budgeting done, the government has run on "continuing resolutions" which just allow spending to continue without any real consideration or overall view. And, of course, without the usual debt ceiling increase that comes from "well intentioned" budgeting. (using the term loosely) The essential problem is that the federal government has failed to do its job, although primarily the Senate and the President.
After you call your bank (including any banks you have loans/credit cards/ with) and let them know what happened, do this: (stolen shamelessly from usbank's website) 1.Call the major credit bureaus: Equifax: 800-525-6285 or equifax.com Experian: 888-397-3742 or experian.com TransUnion: 800-680-7289 or transunion.com First, ask that they place a “fraud alert” on your credit file. A fraud alert prevents creditors from changing your accounts – or opening new ones in your name – without proper verification. Then, request a free copy of your credit report. If you see any additional signs of fraud, notify the credit bureau and the creditors whose accounts are affected. After the disputed transactions are resolved, request another copy of your credit report to make sure your file has been updated.
2.Call your other creditors – including your phone and utility companies – and let them know that you’ve been a victim of fraud. Close any accounts that may have been compromised. As a precaution, consider resetting all of your passwords. 3.Inform check security companies about the fraud: National Check Fraud Center 843-571-2153 SCAN 800-262-7771 TeleCheck 800-710-9898 CrossCheck 707-586-0551 Equifax Check Systems 800-437-5120 International Check Services 800-526-5380 Chexsystems 800-428-9623 CheckRite 800-466-2748
4.File a police report if you think your personal information (driver’s license, address) has been compromised or stolen.
5.Call the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) identity theft hotline at 877-438-4338, or file your complaint online at ftc.gov.
6.Be vigilant, patient and persistent. It can take weeks — or even months — to resolve identity theft. Keep a close eye on all of your statements, review your credit reports regularly, and immediately report any discrepancies.
Why so paranoid? Because with nothing more than your SSN and Address, the bad guys can see your free credit report and know about *every line of credit you have*.
The race is on; here comes Pride in the back stretch.
To be more specific, what if Puerto Rico decided to be their own country? Or Guam? It's the most analogous situation. You're asking me, what would England do if York decided to leave. It's hardly the same question.
To answer: I really wouldn't care.
As far as listing who the spies are, remember that Manning didn't go to Russia and talk. He sought to have them published broadly.
And as far as Manning's personality goes; if some seek to lionize him by comparing him to men who actually stood for something, I'll continue to show why and how he stood for nothing more than himself, and in his fits of pique, not even that. If you want to contain the discussion to the facts of what happened and not try to make a hero of the manling, then go ahead. I don't feel a need to discuss any of this, in that case.
And to the person who implied that Manning's joining the Army meant something: go read the Wikipedia section on his enlistment/duty. Practically every sentence upholds the characterization I made here. He joined to serve himself (free college), he served himself and his ego throughout (shouting at Drill Sergeants, cutting up a chair, discussing details of secret facilities on internet video), and the Army tried to get rid of him/limit him as Unsuitable more than once (transfer to a discharge unit, removal of his weapon's ability to fire, demotion (thanks for keeping him, brass)) and yet he would neither try nor try to fail. And, of course, self-aggrandizement through wholesale theft of information and unreviewed release of same.
You're missing a number of rather important details.
First off, the founders of the USA made an open statement of their problems with King George, having worked to resolve them.
Second, instead of publishing who King George had agreements with, or who his spies in France are, or some other embarassing detail, they simply started their own country and said: if you don't like it, this is who we are; come get some.
Third, they took up arms and resisted the people the King sent after them, when he did indeed come after the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
If you're trying to say Bradley Manning has the balls or integrity to do any of the above, then you're not paying attention or you're willfully lying. He's a little jag who had a temper tantrum because his boyfriend dumped him, and then got demoted for having that temper tantrum at work. Since he was demoted, he grabbed everything he could get his hands on and gave it to where he thought it could do the most damage, while trying desperately to stay anonymous.
Bradley Manning is a coward, a whiner, and a drama Queen. And you are an idiot for comparing him to anyone who ever actually put himself on the line for anything.
First, most cyclists ride in several races during the year. By the time they get to the Tour de France, they've already ridden in the Giro and have had only a few weeks to rest ahead of the Tour. And, they may have ridden in some events in between.
Lance rides the Tour de France. That's it. So he's fresh in a way the rest of the field isn't, and probably financially can't afford to be.
Second, Lance Armstrong is a notorious trainer. You don't have to look far to find stories of how Lance pushed his teammates to train when they thought they didn't have to, or to find Lance training when others were taking time off for little things like Christmas morning.
Third, and maybe most importantly, Lance Armstrong is an arrogant asshole. No, really. He taunts other riders to try to keep up - and they can't. He rubs in every victory, calls out every weakness, and talks trash mercilessly. On top of all that, he's rich from endorsements and gets to be the face of Cycling, for the huge achievement of riding in just one damn race per year.
There are plenty of guys who'd stick it to Lance just because they can.
To put this all in Slashdot terms, let's say you were pretty good at Starcraft. You can beat everyone in your school without too much trouble. Then, one day, you get to play Starcraft against a professional from Korea. Of course, he rips you up like kleenex and just laughs at you. So you find a hack to start out with extra resources and units so you can teach him a lesson. The Korean still dominates you. So, since you're cheating and you know you're good, he's got to be hacking. He just has to be. Right?
So you get someone to watch the computer screen over his shoulder. You monitor network traffic. You upgrade your computer for an extra few FPS. But nothing says he's doing anything fishy. Still, you stick by calling him a hacker - there's just no way he could beat you so easily without cheating too, right?
Please, before ever posting on this again, learn about the following:
-Royalty -The Feudal System -The Catholic Church ca 1520 especially The Vatican Bank and Indulgence Selling -International Banking (Niall Ferguson has a great book, The Ascent of Money. You desperately need to read this.)
And the essential problem that Occupy has is that they don't understand that organized whining isn't any more effective than disorganized whining. You have to work to change things - and therein lies the seeds of their failure.
I can't speak to whether we've always mis-written words.
However, you see words as individual pictures, not as conglomerations of letters. You only learn to phonetically sound-out words as a coping strategy to deal with an unknown word.
This is why reading to your kids is so very, very, very important. You have to establish both the habit of practicing, as well as the baseline of understood word pictures.
For excample, you can tolererate lots of exctra lettters in worsds so loeng as the pictaure doesn't chanege much. Give it a bing.
Quite surprising to see Roberts cross the aisle on this decision..
Not so much. One of his old professors said he'd do this.
This vote establishes Roberts as a different sort of swing vote. If the vote on the merits of a case - without Roberts - results in a 4-4 tie, Roberts has shown he will break the tie in favor of upholding what Congress has done. Roberts does not want close votes to decide large matters - and this is how he chooses to resolve that desire.
I usually only build for/with people I'd be supporting regardless of what they bought.
Typically it's with a bit of skepticism in the beginning. But then once they get used to quick startups, things "just work"ing, and nothing dying after 3-4 years of use, they get pretty addicted.
It's not always about cost savings at purchase - although that argument worked well before Moore's Law pushed hardware well past what most people need. it's about having nice things, and that the things you have actually can be nice.
newegg.com, mostly. I'm kind of an Antec fan as far as cases go.
Cases are very much an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing. Big, small, aluminum, steel, showy, plain.....there's a lot of variety there. Anandtech.com has occasional case reviews up, give them a check.
For years now, I've been building my own PCs. I expect most people on this board do the same.
Why? So I don't have a crap power supply. So the motherboard has a few features beyond "power on". For decent air cooling. The hardware reasons go on and on. For years, anything that you couldn't easily put in a 20-word blurb about a PC has been shaved down and sacrificed beyond bone-deep cuts to create truly craptastic hardware setups.
I'm rather confident this isn't the vision Microsoft had as it built its OS. At least, not for the *entire* non-boutique market.
And then there's the software. My god, the crapware that gets shoveled onto computers. On the rare occasion I bow down to necessity and buy a laptop, the first thing I do is buy a new license to Windows, wipe the thing, and start fresh. It's damn near unusuable otherwise, thanks to the likes of McAfee, Norton, SomeDamnKidsGamesCompany, Yahoo, Earthlink, Google, AskJeeves, and every other piece of stupid bloaty crashy adware that I have to pull out root and branch.
I'm rather confident this isn't the vision Microsoft had as it built its OS. At least, not for the *entire* non-boutique market.
It will be a joy and a wonder to see someone not fuck over a Windows machine before it ever comes out of the box. Eyes will be opened, tears of joy will be shed, and people will think it's all because of Windows 8.
SARs don't go to the IRS or the DEA. They go to FinCEN, which is part of Dept. of the Treasury. It's more for after-the-fact forensic work than active monitoring. A few thoughts on the effectiveness of Federal oversight of the stock market should tell you how much active scrutiny these things receive.
Your banker will ask you some questions - they're required to by the Patriot act, and really, it's probably a security boon for you that they do. But the transaction would only be stopped if the local bank employees smell a problem with you.
--- I'll give you a note on the goldbug nonsense above, too: Gold is a container of value. You can't eat it, wear it or get out of the rain/cold/sun under it. Money is a container of value. You can't eat it, wear it or get out of the rain/cold/sun under it.
The value of either is in being an abstraction of value to grease the wheels of trade. Instead of finding someone with a basket of exactly the food, clothes and iToys you want to pay for the website you built, you can just get cash and buy them yourself.
The reason people used to use gold as money is that it was broadly accepted. Any merchant had a scale, an ability to identify gold, and an understanding of what it was worth in terms of what they sold. And, to increase confidence in the currency of a new nation (the USA, although could be true anywhere), convertabililty to gold was guaranteed so people would take the money. In ancient times coins were just made of the stuff - but you still had to weigh them to make sure they weren't filed/clipped/etc.
However, gold convertibility is layering an abstraction on top of an abstraction. It's like running a VM inside a VM - kind of stupid and awkward on its face. So the underlying abstraction (gold) was discarded and everything still just worked.
Putting that spare abstraction back would be equally stupid.
The real problem is that the Fed has a dual mandate - to control the supply of money to give both: 1. price stability and 2. economic growth (employment gains).
These goals are almost never compatible to the degree politicans want, and so growth is almost always favored - especially when it really shouldn't be, like today. So take away that mandate. Start doing it right. Because we're doing it wrong. And gold convertability will never, ever fix that. Because they'll just change the ratio.
Everyone's working on doing this. For example, Visa is piloting a program with a small number of banks to do visa-to-visa payment. Much like Paypal, you can send money from your account to anyone else's, with a small interchange fee in between. Really, the first minute PayPal started being accepted outside eBay the entire industry was behind the curve.
The problem, of course, is supporting small payments of the sort that move between people profitably. If you consider that the major payments companies created networks in the 70s to handle real-time processing, you understand why their model has a significant overhead - they have their own internet to move all this, built before digital communication got big and computing got cheap.
So you know it's coming. As everyone wants to move to a model where they charge you for sips instead of buckets (per-song pricing RIAA, per-view pricing MPAA, per-item pricing Diablo 3...) there has to be a way to process small payments economically. And when you consider the amount of money movement that occurs between private citizens, you can see between the two a huge, untapped market. A way *will* be found.
That said, I'm not going to be a part of it myself. If personal wealth is never anything other than a bit switch in a computer in some big org, then it's trivially easy to take away or control. All other issues you could describe fall from that one truth. You can call me a Luddite, but I don't like it. Even if I'm helping to implement it.
The largest and best repairs often make things look worse at first.
I just had my front step replaced. It went from looking like a crumbly front step to looking like a pile of rubble. Now it looks like a really nice front step.
Your Finnish mobile company was probably just really messed up, and the first steps of the repair involve demolishing the biggest problems.
Capital for investment is, by definition, fluid. It flows to the best situations, in all cases. Borders are virtually irrelevant - especially in the modern age where funds are so much easier to move than trying to pack gold bars in a suitcase.
Go ahead and tax it; it'll disappear like a fart in the wind before the bill comes due. Or to put it more precisely:
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers
Slashdot Mirror
Let me see if I can help you with some of this.
1. You say the problem doesn't exist. The problem there is, if anyone can just walk in to the poll and say, "I'm Steve Wozniak", and we never ask for any proof that they are who they say they are, how do you prove they aren't Steve Wozniak 3 days later? Add to this the well-documented voter registration quotas Acorn was running, and you have a political organization with a list of registered, fantasy voters. Photo ID, of course, means you can mess up the registered voter rolls all you want and it won't matter. Right now, it matters greatly.
2. I'm not aware of a Voter ID law that doesn't provide for appropriate ID for those who can't afford it, or some other means (like nursing home residents' medical records) as appropriate. That said, you can't open a bank account, get a credit card, drive, drink, get into clubs or buy medicine without photo ID. It seems highly unlikely any significant amount of people really don't have it anymore.
3. Actually, no one is looking for real people to not be able to vote. See point 1. But then, maybe you say this because you like it this way. (I'll leave out party affilitaion of those who don't like what's right/wrong being documented anywhere, to protect the guilty)
Gee, that's real interesting. There sure are a lot of pretty pictures in those articles, and a lot of Democrats-did kind of verbage. You'd almost think someone created those articles on purpose!
To quote Tom Hanks, I bet that's a coinke-dinkie.
And then to look at the budget articles from the mid-2000's...why, there's almost nothing there!
I'm sure it's just another big coinke-dinke. No one ever manipulates Wikipedia! Why, it's the gold standard for truth and objectivity!
I guess I should ignore the New York times (that bastion of hard-core right-wingers)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html
And Politifact, they're clearly clueless:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/05/buddy-roemer/obama-submitted-budgets/
The Hill is totally wrong.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget
In fact, even that RWNJ hotbed, the Huffington Post, acknowledges it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/house-gop-budget-plan-senate_n_1522393.html
"Democrats haven't passed a budget since 2009, opting against weeklong floor debates that would have exposed party members to dozens of politically difficult votes or put themselves on record in favor of tax hikes or huge deficits."
But hey, enjoy your wikipedia edits. Propagandist.
Your argument on "securitizing debt already incurred" would make sense, under a different government.
In the USA, we have a law that limits the amount of debt the federal government may incur. This, of course, is revised regularly to accommodate the ongoing profligate spending by both parties.
The difference now is that we have no budget.
You see, normally the President gives the House of Representatives a budget, they discuss it, edit it, and issue a new bill outlining the spending they've agreed to, typically including an amendment to the law limiting debt. This package law (often called an omnibus budget) goes to the Senate, where they typically vote it down and create their own version. A "conference committee" is conviened which hammers out a compromise bill between the House and Senate, which each passes. This bill then goes to the President, which is signed or vetoed.
However, the President has given the House no budget in the last 3 years. (there was a very loose model which was never intended to be voted on, but got a 0-414 vote anyway) Budgets were presented to the Senate (incorrectly, because spending bills must originiate in the House) which failed 0-97 or 0-99.
The House has sent the Senate budgets, but the Democrats have the majority there, and their leadership refuses to allow the budgets to come to a vote or to be considered.
And so, with no budgeting done, the government has run on "continuing resolutions" which just allow spending to continue without any real consideration or overall view. And, of course, without the usual debt ceiling increase that comes from "well intentioned" budgeting. (using the term loosely) The essential problem is that the federal government has failed to do its job, although primarily the Senate and the President.
Seriously.
Like no one here understands what it feels like to need to pull a raid because you're 100 Vespene gas short.
After you call your bank (including any banks you have loans/credit cards/ with) and let them know what happened, do this:
(stolen shamelessly from usbank's website)
1.Call the major credit bureaus:
Equifax: 800-525-6285 or equifax.com
Experian: 888-397-3742 or experian.com
TransUnion: 800-680-7289 or transunion.com
First, ask that they place a “fraud alert” on your credit file. A fraud alert prevents creditors from changing your accounts – or opening new ones in your name – without proper verification. Then, request a free copy of your credit report. If you see any additional signs of fraud, notify the credit bureau and the creditors whose accounts are affected. After the disputed transactions are resolved, request another copy of your credit report to make sure your file has been updated.
2.Call your other creditors – including your phone and utility companies – and let them know that you’ve been a victim of fraud. Close any accounts that may have been compromised. As a precaution, consider resetting all of your passwords.
3.Inform check security companies about the fraud:
National Check Fraud Center 843-571-2153
SCAN 800-262-7771
TeleCheck 800-710-9898
CrossCheck 707-586-0551
Equifax Check Systems 800-437-5120
International Check Services 800-526-5380
Chexsystems 800-428-9623
CheckRite 800-466-2748
4.File a police report if you think your personal information (driver’s license, address) has been compromised or stolen.
5.Call the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) identity theft hotline at 877-438-4338, or file your complaint online at ftc.gov.
6.Be vigilant, patient and persistent. It can take weeks — or even months — to resolve identity theft. Keep a close eye on all of your statements, review your credit reports regularly, and immediately report any discrepancies.
Why so paranoid? Because with nothing more than your SSN and Address, the bad guys can see your free credit report and know about *every line of credit you have*.
The race is on; here comes Pride in the back stretch.
To be more specific, what if Puerto Rico decided to be their own country? Or Guam? It's the most analogous situation. You're asking me, what would England do if York decided to leave. It's hardly the same question.
To answer: I really wouldn't care.
As far as listing who the spies are, remember that Manning didn't go to Russia and talk. He sought to have them published broadly.
And as far as Manning's personality goes; if some seek to lionize him by comparing him to men who actually stood for something, I'll continue to show why and how he stood for nothing more than himself, and in his fits of pique, not even that. If you want to contain the discussion to the facts of what happened and not try to make a hero of the manling, then go ahead. I don't feel a need to discuss any of this, in that case.
And to the person who implied that Manning's joining the Army meant something: go read the Wikipedia section on his enlistment/duty. Practically every sentence upholds the characterization I made here. He joined to serve himself (free college), he served himself and his ego throughout (shouting at Drill Sergeants, cutting up a chair, discussing details of secret facilities on internet video), and the Army tried to get rid of him/limit him as Unsuitable more than once (transfer to a discharge unit, removal of his weapon's ability to fire, demotion (thanks for keeping him, brass)) and yet he would neither try nor try to fail. And, of course, self-aggrandizement through wholesale theft of information and unreviewed release of same.
You're missing a number of rather important details.
First off, the founders of the USA made an open statement of their problems with King George, having worked to resolve them.
Second, instead of publishing who King George had agreements with, or who his spies in France are, or some other embarassing detail, they simply started their own country and said: if you don't like it, this is who we are; come get some.
Third, they took up arms and resisted the people the King sent after them, when he did indeed come after the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
If you're trying to say Bradley Manning has the balls or integrity to do any of the above, then you're not paying attention or you're willfully lying.
He's a little jag who had a temper tantrum because his boyfriend dumped him, and then got demoted for having that temper tantrum at work. Since he was demoted, he grabbed everything he could get his hands on and gave it to where he thought it could do the most damage, while trying desperately to stay anonymous.
Bradley Manning is a coward, a whiner, and a drama Queen. And you are an idiot for comparing him to anyone who ever actually put himself on the line for anything.
First, most cyclists ride in several races during the year. By the time they get to the Tour de France, they've already ridden in the Giro and have had only a few weeks to rest ahead of the Tour. And, they may have ridden in some events in between.
Lance rides the Tour de France. That's it. So he's fresh in a way the rest of the field isn't, and probably financially can't afford to be.
Second, Lance Armstrong is a notorious trainer. You don't have to look far to find stories of how Lance pushed his teammates to train when they thought they didn't have to, or to find Lance training when others were taking time off for little things like Christmas morning.
Third, and maybe most importantly, Lance Armstrong is an arrogant asshole. No, really. He taunts other riders to try to keep up - and they can't. He rubs in every victory, calls out every weakness, and talks trash mercilessly. On top of all that, he's rich from endorsements and gets to be the face of Cycling, for the huge achievement of riding in just one damn race per year.
There are plenty of guys who'd stick it to Lance just because they can.
To put this all in Slashdot terms, let's say you were pretty good at Starcraft. You can beat everyone in your school without too much trouble.
Then, one day, you get to play Starcraft against a professional from Korea. Of course, he rips you up like kleenex and just laughs at you. So you find a hack to start out with extra resources and units so you can teach him a lesson. The Korean still dominates you. So, since you're cheating and you know you're good, he's got to be hacking. He just has to be. Right?
So you get someone to watch the computer screen over his shoulder. You monitor network traffic. You upgrade your computer for an extra few FPS. But nothing says he's doing anything fishy. Still, you stick by calling him a hacker - there's just no way he could beat you so easily without cheating too, right?
Right?
Please, before ever posting on this again, learn about the following:
-Royalty
-The Feudal System
-The Catholic Church ca 1520 especially The Vatican Bank and Indulgence Selling
-International Banking (Niall Ferguson has a great book, The Ascent of Money. You desperately need to read this.)
And the essential problem that Occupy has is that they don't understand that organized whining isn't any more effective than disorganized whining. You have to work to change things - and therein lies the seeds of their failure.
I'm a Lumberjack, and I'm OK.
Out here we know...don't name it if you're gonna shoot it.
A large part of the European processing network is run by a subsidary of US Bank.
Guess where they're from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elavon
I can't speak to whether we've always mis-written words.
However, you see words as individual pictures, not as conglomerations of letters. You only learn to phonetically sound-out words as a coping strategy to deal with an unknown word.
This is why reading to your kids is so very, very, very important. You have to establish both the habit of practicing, as well as the baseline of understood word pictures.
For excample, you can tolererate lots of exctra lettters in worsds so loeng as the pictaure doesn't chanege much. Give it a bing.
Stucco is a popular choice for homes in CA.
Did you know that stucco uses, as a foundational base, a wire mesh that resembles chicken wire?
And, this wire mesh does a reasonable job as a stand-in for a Faraday cage.
So even if the level of RF were somehow dangerous (it's not), the average CA house is actually fairly well-insulated against it.
Quite surprising to see Roberts cross the aisle on this decision..
Not so much. One of his old professors said he'd do this.
This vote establishes Roberts as a different sort of swing vote. If the vote on the merits of a case - without Roberts - results in a 4-4 tie, Roberts has shown he will break the tie in favor of upholding what Congress has done. Roberts does not want close votes to decide large matters - and this is how he chooses to resolve that desire.
I usually only build for/with people I'd be supporting regardless of what they bought.
Typically it's with a bit of skepticism in the beginning. But then once they get used to quick startups, things "just work"ing, and nothing dying after 3-4 years of use, they get pretty addicted.
It's not always about cost savings at purchase - although that argument worked well before Moore's Law pushed hardware well past what most people need. it's about having nice things, and that the things you have actually can be nice.
newegg.com, mostly. I'm kind of an Antec fan as far as cases go.
Cases are very much an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing. Big, small, aluminum, steel, showy, plain.....there's a lot of variety there. Anandtech.com has occasional case reviews up, give them a check.
For years now, I've been building my own PCs. I expect most people on this board do the same.
Why? So I don't have a crap power supply. So the motherboard has a few features beyond "power on". For decent air cooling. The hardware reasons go on and on. For years, anything that you couldn't easily put in a 20-word blurb about a PC has been shaved down and sacrificed beyond bone-deep cuts to create truly craptastic hardware setups.
I'm rather confident this isn't the vision Microsoft had as it built its OS. At least, not for the *entire* non-boutique market.
And then there's the software. My god, the crapware that gets shoveled onto computers. On the rare occasion I bow down to necessity and buy a laptop, the first thing I do is buy a new license to Windows, wipe the thing, and start fresh. It's damn near unusuable otherwise, thanks to the likes of McAfee, Norton, SomeDamnKidsGamesCompany, Yahoo, Earthlink, Google, AskJeeves, and every other piece of stupid bloaty crashy adware that I have to pull out root and branch.
I'm rather confident this isn't the vision Microsoft had as it built its OS. At least, not for the *entire* non-boutique market.
It will be a joy and a wonder to see someone not fuck over a Windows machine before it ever comes out of the box. Eyes will be opened, tears of joy will be shed, and people will think it's all because of Windows 8.
And that's the true shame.
Because it was always there to begin with.
They tried this with electricity generation in California. It was called Deregulation, and it was going to be great.
You might have heard the story of how that experiment went. If not, look up Enron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report
SARs don't go to the IRS or the DEA. They go to FinCEN, which is part of Dept. of the Treasury. It's more for after-the-fact forensic work than active monitoring. A few thoughts on the effectiveness of Federal oversight of the stock market should tell you how much active scrutiny these things receive.
Your banker will ask you some questions - they're required to by the Patriot act, and really, it's probably a security boon for you that they do. But the transaction would only be stopped if the local bank employees smell a problem with you.
---
I'll give you a note on the goldbug nonsense above, too:
Gold is a container of value. You can't eat it, wear it or get out of the rain/cold/sun under it.
Money is a container of value. You can't eat it, wear it or get out of the rain/cold/sun under it.
The value of either is in being an abstraction of value to grease the wheels of trade. Instead of finding someone with a basket of exactly the food, clothes and iToys you want to pay for the website you built, you can just get cash and buy them yourself.
The reason people used to use gold as money is that it was broadly accepted. Any merchant had a scale, an ability to identify gold, and an understanding of what it was worth in terms of what they sold. And, to increase confidence in the currency of a new nation (the USA, although could be true anywhere), convertabililty to gold was guaranteed so people would take the money. In ancient times coins were just made of the stuff - but you still had to weigh them to make sure they weren't filed/clipped/etc.
However, gold convertibility is layering an abstraction on top of an abstraction. It's like running a VM inside a VM - kind of stupid and awkward on its face. So the underlying abstraction (gold) was discarded and everything still just worked.
Putting that spare abstraction back would be equally stupid.
The real problem is that the Fed has a dual mandate - to control the supply of money to give both: 1. price stability and 2. economic growth (employment gains).
These goals are almost never compatible to the degree politicans want, and so growth is almost always favored - especially when it really shouldn't be, like today. So take away that mandate. Start doing it right. Because we're doing it wrong. And gold convertability will never, ever fix that. Because they'll just change the ratio.
IAAPIP - I Am A Payments Industry Professional
Everyone's working on doing this. For example, Visa is piloting a program with a small number of banks to do visa-to-visa payment. Much like Paypal, you can send money from your account to anyone else's, with a small interchange fee in between. Really, the first minute PayPal started being accepted outside eBay the entire industry was behind the curve.
The problem, of course, is supporting small payments of the sort that move between people profitably. If you consider that the major payments companies created networks in the 70s to handle real-time processing, you understand why their model has a significant overhead - they have their own internet to move all this, built before digital communication got big and computing got cheap.
So you know it's coming. As everyone wants to move to a model where they charge you for sips instead of buckets (per-song pricing RIAA, per-view pricing MPAA, per-item pricing Diablo 3...) there has to be a way to process small payments economically. And when you consider the amount of money movement that occurs between private citizens, you can see between the two a huge, untapped market. A way *will* be found.
That said, I'm not going to be a part of it myself. If personal wealth is never anything other than a bit switch in a computer in some big org, then it's trivially easy to take away or control. All other issues you could describe fall from that one truth. You can call me a Luddite, but I don't like it. Even if I'm helping to implement it.
You need to read more German media.
For example:
http://www.bild.de/lifestyle/startseite/lifestyle/lifestyle-15478526.bild.html
For counter example, I would note that ESPN will be covering the Scripps National Spelling Bee this year.
Perhaps your perspective on this has more to do with you than with Germany or the United States.
Slashdot is a US-centric site.
Why are we getting this news about the UK? Whoever decides what stories get posted is a nastyName.
(hey, it's about time someone said the inverse....)
The largest and best repairs often make things look worse at first.
I just had my front step replaced. It went from looking like a crumbly front step to looking like a pile of rubble.
Now it looks like a really nice front step.
Your Finnish mobile company was probably just really messed up, and the first steps of the repair involve demolishing the biggest problems.
and no, moving out of the country is not the next best answer here, hopefully for obvious reasons
It's happening right now after the French elected an avowed socialist who is putting in exactly the schemes you recommend:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139537/French-Greek-elections-spark-property-boom-London-rich-buyers-flood-UK-escape-euro-crisis.html
Capital for investment is, by definition, fluid. It flows to the best situations, in all cases. Borders are virtually irrelevant - especially in the modern age where funds are so much easier to move than trying to pack gold bars in a suitcase.
Go ahead and tax it; it'll disappear like a fart in the wind before the bill comes due. Or to put it more precisely:
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers