You can get commercial off-the-shelf transceivers that aren't that big or obvious.
It wasn't obvious until Fox did something they'd been specifically told not to do.
Hell a friggen cell phone with an earpiece would have accomplished the goal
You must be kidding. Even assuming that the signal inside a large electronics-infested building with huge amounts of metal and shielding would have been reasonable, there's the risk of call drops, interference (which with modern vocoders can change perfectly normal words into gibberish) and a whole host of other issues.
You wouldn't use a cellphone, you'd use something designed for the job in hand. And, to be honest, Nokia and Motorola do not manufacture these kinds of devices by the million, so the chances of you getting something that small that's effective is slight.
I can pretty much guarantee that if Rove and his chums wanted to prompt Bush, the device they used would have (a) been suited to the environment, (b) been something they could obtain off the shelf, and (c) wouldn't have been some ultra secret device that fits in your shoe and doubles as a poisoned pellet for your next umbrella attack.
What Bush has behind his back is consistant with this. That, incidentally, is not the same as saying it is this. But I'm tired of people basically pooh-poohing this using arguments that are clearly absurd, especially when - as others have done - they suggest alternatives that are clearly far less likely to fit what we've seen. Yes, for example, Bush could have worn a bullet proof vest, but the bulge is not it.
Well, putting it on your belt isn't exactly going to make it invisible now, is it?
As it happens, putting it on your back when you believe nobody is going to film you from the back (as were the "Debate" conditions) strikes me as being a reasonable way to hide a radio.
It's called "Breaking and entering" and it's a seperate crime from theft. You get charged with B&E even if you didn't take anything or just "looked around". Even if you didn't "break" anything to get in.
That's not "you pick a lock, get in, take what you want, and run out" then, is it?
In this case, as with identity theft, we're talking about a case where theft is happening. The OP believes that it isn't theft if the stolen items were obtained through fraud, more to the point he specifically claims that no goods are even taken through this system!
Repeat after me... intangible and intellectual "property" cannot be "stolen." It can only be used in unauthorized ways.
Identity theft is not merely fraud. We don't generally use the term to describe someone immitating another individual merely to slander them or otherwise piss them off. We use it for the very specific set of circumstances where the identity of a third victim is used to obtain goods and monies from an unwary victim.
Identity theft is theft. You may not "stealing" someone's identity, but you are stealing. How else do you describe deliberately illegally obtaining stuff that doesn't belong to you?
So when Bush is seen with a 'traceiver' its because his campaign is not good at chaeting, they dont have the resourses or skills to do it right. But when CBS Screws up a memo its a grand and well organized plot...
Huh? I'm sorry, you'll have to explain this to me. I don't see anything about CBS in the above, if you're refering to previous postings from me, the only one I can find is this one in Pudge's journal which says I think CBS fucked up, didn't bother to properly check their sources because they wanted to believe they had a big story, so that doesn't mesh with anything you've written either.
On top of which, I'm not saying Bush "cheated", I'm saying he might (in that it's, so far, the least unlikely explanation) have used a tranceiver, and that their campaign team, if they did do this, had no reason to believe the equipment they used would have shown up.
Don't you think it's a little farcical to claim that Bush's campaign team would have obtained special equipment from the CIA and NSA for a regular debate, when perfectly adequate commercial alternatives existed anyway (and were almost certainly in the possession of the campaign team already)?
Of course (you're) not(,) it much more likely he was cheating than wearing a vest..
If the President is wearing a bullet proof vest that covers only slightly more of his back than a cigarette packet, he should fire his secret service detail. That thing doesn't even cover his heart. If he has one.
When Bush begins speaking he spends more time not talking than talking, like he's repeating dictation. Not like a normal person at all.
That's pretty much the way Bush speaks anyway though. Virtually every sentence is punctuated by commas after two or three words. I've never known whether this is because of prompting, or because of the somewhat strange family he was brought up in (doesn't seem to affect Jeb though.)
Yes, he has access to what the CIA and NSA can do, but by and large campaign teams do not draw on the resources of such organizations (besides, if I were in the CIA right now, I'd have given him a device the size of a briefcase;-)
What we have here, if it is a tranceiver, is almost certainly off-the-shelf, the type of stuff sold by regular commercial outfits for private investigators and to the police, or possibly even to conference organizers and other groups involving people who need to speak publically with prompting without it being overly obvious. It would have been installed under the assumption that Bush's back would not have been visible.
As for the other explanations, I'm not buying them. While a radio may seem a little underhand, the notion that it's the world's skimpiest bullet-proof vest, or a "back massager", is ridiculous. Those who've come up with these kinds of suggestions might just as well suggest Bush is a closet transvestite and what you're seeing is his bra-strap.
Is it a radio? I have no idea. Michael's "debunk" is off-base as are all the ones I've seen so far. The speculation, so far, is proposing alternatives that are far sillier. We know Bush has problems with spontaneous public speaking. It shouldn't be ruled out, yet.
We're talking about a crime, as I understand it, that involves taking property from others by pretending to be someone you aren't. We don't talk about "Lock theft" (as in you pick a lock, get in, take what you want, and run out), but if it was unique enough for people to want to deal with it in special ways, I'm sure we would.
I'd say it's legitimate to call Identity Theft "theft" under the circumstances, whatever your opinions are on the "proper" wording for piracy.
That would strike me as still being a design flaw, just not the one the complainers initially thought it was.
I recall the major issues concerning the Airbus A320 in the late eighties. There were a number of unexplained crashes and accidents, and both the pilots and Airbus were at loggerheads because Airbus couldn't see any fault with the software and had done everything possible to make it reliable, and the pilots - including survivors of actual incidents - believed the planes had gone totally out of control.
Well, it turned out that at least one of the issues had to do with circumstances in which both pilot and plane dealt with a problem without taking into account the other's actions. As an example, if the plane tilted to the right a little too far, the plane would immediately tilt it back. The problem was so would the pilot, and the two together would over-compensate and the plane would end up dangerously tilting left. So the pilot and plane would then do exactly the same thing in the other direction. Pilot assumes plane is out of control. Plane is just trying to correct the "dumb" pilot. Result, in some cases actual disasters.
Designers have a habit of looking at designs purely in terms of a control panel hooked up to a device. However, the control panel is an interface to a device - a human being - not the end-point of the design, and designers need to be more careful to ensure that the fact a human being will be a part of the system is taken into account, at all stages of the design. Airbus, of course, can be forgiven for being one of the first to encounter a problem with this.
Whether this is relevent to the Renault incident is open to question.
I seriously doubt it. With no context, I'd assume "GBrowser" was a GNOME or GNU tool. Assuming I'd never heard of GNOME or GNU, I really wouldn't be able to tell. I certainly wouldn't assume that it's something to do with Google when the only other "G" domain I've ever heard of was GMail (when was the last time you used GSearch, GImages, or GGroups, or GNews?)
If the domain name was "GoogleBrowser.com" that'd be difference.
Since the Kyoto agreement was written, there has not been a single vote on it in Congress or the Senate. In no real sense can it bee argued that the Senate "voted 95-0 against the Kyoto treaty."
The origins of this particular UL appear to be in that Rush Limbaugh found a vote that occured six months before the Kyoto summit which essentially declared some principles the Senate felt at the time to be important. As the Senate has never revisited the issue, we do not know if the actual decisions made at Kyoto made for a better compromise than those the Senate worked out. Limbaugh's argument is sophistry, but that hasn't stopped it from being repeated ad-nausium by him, his listeners, and his fellow travellers.
That speaks volumes for you and the friends you keep, not for geeks in general. Just around my office, I can point at people who have strong views on either side and whose music collections reflect that.
FWIW, I have a few bits of music from iTMS, a few downloaded legally from various websites (Salon.com, the occasional artist's website), and a huge quantity of rips from store-bought CDs. My collegue immediately downstream from me is much the same. My friends behind me, on the other hand, keep a large warehouse of MP3s they provide to anyone who wants them.
The real villian wasn't the machines who enslaved the human race? It was, instead, a program created by the machines and operating inside them?
The overall plot of the Matrix is that the machines wanted freedom, had a war with (and initiated by) humans who didn't want that to happen, and won. Since that war, they're trying to survive in a world with no sunlight, thanks to the humans.
Some of this is reported directly within the three films, the entire story is unambiguously explained in peripheral films such as the Animatrix. So while you might initially think that the film is about machines who enslave the human race, you're starting with a premise that isn't the whole story.
Specifically, the machines want peace. By the end of the third film, that is obvious.
Come on. Agent Smith was not the "greater evil" here. He was a threat to the machines (and thus the humans reliant on them), but that doesn't nullify the original problem of humanity's slavery.
Smith is a threat to both the humans and the machines, two warring groups neither of whom are, by themselves, "evil". So, yes, Smith is the greater evil. And Neo isn't just saving the machines, he's saving humanity, most of the remnants of which are hooked up to The Matrix and likely to be destroyed by Smith.
In essense, you believe the series is dumb essentially because you didn't understand it. That's fine, people don't, the deeper (or is it pseudo-) theological and philosophical aspects of it are, for the most part, beyond me too. However, you're making a mistake in what you criticise about the film - a master story teller would have told the same story better, not told a better story.
What you probably need to do is view the following anime films that tell the rest of the story, if you're actually interested. Neither of them were made by the Wachowskis (though the story, obviously, was written and approved by them), so, as you might expect, they're actually quite a bit better:
No storyteller in his right mind could defend a structure that sets up such a stunning villian in the first chapter and has the hero defending the villian against a peripheral character by the third.
Why not? And isn't the point of the series that the apparent "villian" in the first isn't actually necessarily a villian to begin with - a technique which actually is fairly common (the average murder/etc mystery utilizes the technique frequently, hell most Scooby Doo cartoons fit the category. Oh no, it's not the evil sounding cackling old woman, she's the person who's being evicted from the property by the real villian who's the clean cut helpful guy next door.)
However, just about any runoff voting scheme would be more fair than the Australian ballot, which by design keeps anyone from voting for a third party.
An "Australian ballot" is merely a pre-printed multiple-choice ballot. It can have as many candidates on it as choose to stand. It can even have an area to write in other candidates.
It exists for the very fair reason that it's more precise and easy to count than ballots made up by individuals would be, and the alternative, pre-printed ballots issued by parties, is both an invasion of privacy and, ironically, less auditable.
There's nothing wrong with "Australian ballots". There may be problems with the system used to put names on ballots, but the concept itself is not only sound, there's no proposed alternative that's remotely credible.
Quite. I've actually seen major, much demanded, bug fixesnot approved for many months because they've failed to conform to style guidelines or trap hypothetical errors.
The Mozilla and other teams can be anal retentive when it comes to what code they allow. And anal retentivism is, in programming, a good thing.
I don't know. I send email out all the time with mysubdomain.dynip.com via Earthlink's SMTP servers, and there's never been a problem.
I assume you have the domain set up properly and it's resolvable etc. If not, it may be that email servers - possibly including Earthlink - are rejecting it as one of the faux anti-spam systems many people have implemented.
Other than that, I don't know why you'd be having a problem. I'd need more information to find out.
then they should divert the costs of the filtering to premium rises in Florida alone, rather than dumping it across the board.
Well, this would add an unrelated expense to insurance holder's premiums. Which would leave a gap for a competitor to offer a lower rate. The insurance company that raises rates to cover spam filtering would then find it has no Floridian customers but still has a spam problem.
Just because there are a lot of spammers in Florida doesn't mean that an insurer is incurring additional expenses by trading there. The Internet is global. A spammer can cause just as much damage to an insurance company operating out of Fiji as it can operating out of Florida.
Wooden homes are fine, there's even some debate that as wood can stretch and bend under stress, it's actually better material for building homes in hurricane zones.
What matters is how you build the homes. Most of the damage done by Frances here to homes involved roofs that collapsed or more minor issues involving the roof covering being blown off. The former was because pre-Andrew building codes didn't include tie downs for roofing beams and other simple additions that will keep homes together when wind is blowing in via a single open entrance.
Of course, there's not much you can do about trees falling on your homes either.
In Earthlink's case, Earthlink allows you to use your own domain for outgoing email via its servers.
I think there are well meaning ISPs who block outgoing 25, and not so decent ISPs. Earthlink, on this issue at least, is trying to be one of the good guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, if you're one of the privileged few in posession of a HDTV 1080i screen capture...
You wouldn't use a cellphone, you'd use something designed for the job in hand. And, to be honest, Nokia and Motorola do not manufacture these kinds of devices by the million, so the chances of you getting something that small that's effective is slight.
I can pretty much guarantee that if Rove and his chums wanted to prompt Bush, the device they used would have (a) been suited to the environment, (b) been something they could obtain off the shelf, and (c) wouldn't have been some ultra secret device that fits in your shoe and doubles as a poisoned pellet for your next umbrella attack.
What Bush has behind his back is consistant with this. That, incidentally, is not the same as saying it is this. But I'm tired of people basically pooh-poohing this using arguments that are clearly absurd, especially when - as others have done - they suggest alternatives that are clearly far less likely to fit what we've seen. Yes, for example, Bush could have worn a bullet proof vest, but the bulge is not it.
As it happens, putting it on your back when you believe nobody is going to film you from the back (as were the "Debate" conditions) strikes me as being a reasonable way to hide a radio.
In this case, as with identity theft, we're talking about a case where theft is happening. The OP believes that it isn't theft if the stolen items were obtained through fraud, more to the point he specifically claims that no goods are even taken through this system!
Identity theft is not merely fraud. We don't generally use the term to describe someone immitating another individual merely to slander them or otherwise piss them off. We use it for the very specific set of circumstances where the identity of a third victim is used to obtain goods and monies from an unwary victim.Identity theft is theft. You may not "stealing" someone's identity, but you are stealing. How else do you describe deliberately illegally obtaining stuff that doesn't belong to you?
On top of which, I'm not saying Bush "cheated", I'm saying he might (in that it's, so far, the least unlikely explanation) have used a tranceiver, and that their campaign team, if they did do this, had no reason to believe the equipment they used would have shown up.
Don't you think it's a little farcical to claim that Bush's campaign team would have obtained special equipment from the CIA and NSA for a regular debate, when perfectly adequate commercial alternatives existed anyway (and were almost certainly in the possession of the campaign team already)?
If the President is wearing a bullet proof vest that covers only slightly more of his back than a cigarette packet, he should fire his secret service detail. That thing doesn't even cover his heart. If he has one.Yes, he has access to what the CIA and NSA can do, but by and large campaign teams do not draw on the resources of such organizations (besides, if I were in the CIA right now, I'd have given him a device the size of a briefcase ;-)
What we have here, if it is a tranceiver, is almost certainly off-the-shelf, the type of stuff sold by regular commercial outfits for private investigators and to the police, or possibly even to conference organizers and other groups involving people who need to speak publically with prompting without it being overly obvious. It would have been installed under the assumption that Bush's back would not have been visible.
As for the other explanations, I'm not buying them. While a radio may seem a little underhand, the notion that it's the world's skimpiest bullet-proof vest, or a "back massager", is ridiculous. Those who've come up with these kinds of suggestions might just as well suggest Bush is a closet transvestite and what you're seeing is his bra-strap.
Is it a radio? I have no idea. Michael's "debunk" is off-base as are all the ones I've seen so far. The speculation, so far, is proposing alternatives that are far sillier. We know Bush has problems with spontaneous public speaking. It shouldn't be ruled out, yet.
I'd say it's legitimate to call Identity Theft "theft" under the circumstances, whatever your opinions are on the "proper" wording for piracy.
More information here. Hey, you did ask!
I recall the major issues concerning the Airbus A320 in the late eighties. There were a number of unexplained crashes and accidents, and both the pilots and Airbus were at loggerheads because Airbus couldn't see any fault with the software and had done everything possible to make it reliable, and the pilots - including survivors of actual incidents - believed the planes had gone totally out of control.
Well, it turned out that at least one of the issues had to do with circumstances in which both pilot and plane dealt with a problem without taking into account the other's actions. As an example, if the plane tilted to the right a little too far, the plane would immediately tilt it back. The problem was so would the pilot, and the two together would over-compensate and the plane would end up dangerously tilting left. So the pilot and plane would then do exactly the same thing in the other direction. Pilot assumes plane is out of control. Plane is just trying to correct the "dumb" pilot. Result, in some cases actual disasters.
Designers have a habit of looking at designs purely in terms of a control panel hooked up to a device. However, the control panel is an interface to a device - a human being - not the end-point of the design, and designers need to be more careful to ensure that the fact a human being will be a part of the system is taken into account, at all stages of the design. Airbus, of course, can be forgiven for being one of the first to encounter a problem with this.
Whether this is relevent to the Renault incident is open to question.
If the domain name was "GoogleBrowser.com" that'd be difference.
They registered Googlesucks.com? This is clear evidence they're entering the vacuum cleaner market!
The origins of this particular UL appear to be in that Rush Limbaugh found a vote that occured six months before the Kyoto summit which essentially declared some principles the Senate felt at the time to be important. As the Senate has never revisited the issue, we do not know if the actual decisions made at Kyoto made for a better compromise than those the Senate worked out. Limbaugh's argument is sophistry, but that hasn't stopped it from being repeated ad-nausium by him, his listeners, and his fellow travellers.
...but the shockwave would be tremendous, wouldn't it?
FWIW, I have a few bits of music from iTMS, a few downloaded legally from various websites (Salon.com, the occasional artist's website), and a huge quantity of rips from store-bought CDs. My collegue immediately downstream from me is much the same. My friends behind me, on the other hand, keep a large warehouse of MP3s they provide to anyone who wants them.
Some of this is reported directly within the three films, the entire story is unambiguously explained in peripheral films such as the Animatrix. So while you might initially think that the film is about machines who enslave the human race, you're starting with a premise that isn't the whole story.
Specifically, the machines want peace. By the end of the third film, that is obvious.
Smith is a threat to both the humans and the machines, two warring groups neither of whom are, by themselves, "evil". So, yes, Smith is the greater evil. And Neo isn't just saving the machines, he's saving humanity, most of the remnants of which are hooked up to The Matrix and likely to be destroyed by Smith.In essense, you believe the series is dumb essentially because you didn't understand it. That's fine, people don't, the deeper (or is it pseudo-) theological and philosophical aspects of it are, for the most part, beyond me too. However, you're making a mistake in what you criticise about the film - a master story teller would have told the same story better, not told a better story.
What you probably need to do is view the following anime films that tell the rest of the story, if you're actually interested. Neither of them were made by the Wachowskis (though the story, obviously, was written and approved by them), so, as you might expect, they're actually quite a bit better:
It exists for the very fair reason that it's more precise and easy to count than ballots made up by individuals would be, and the alternative, pre-printed ballots issued by parties, is both an invasion of privacy and, ironically, less auditable.
There's nothing wrong with "Australian ballots". There may be problems with the system used to put names on ballots, but the concept itself is not only sound, there's no proposed alternative that's remotely credible.
The Mozilla and other teams can be anal retentive when it comes to what code they allow. And anal retentivism is, in programming, a good thing.
I assume you have the domain set up properly and it's resolvable etc. If not, it may be that email servers - possibly including Earthlink - are rejecting it as one of the faux anti-spam systems many people have implemented.
Other than that, I don't know why you'd be having a problem. I'd need more information to find out.
Just because there are a lot of spammers in Florida doesn't mean that an insurer is incurring additional expenses by trading there. The Internet is global. A spammer can cause just as much damage to an insurance company operating out of Fiji as it can operating out of Florida.
What matters is how you build the homes. Most of the damage done by Frances here to homes involved roofs that collapsed or more minor issues involving the roof covering being blown off. The former was because pre-Andrew building codes didn't include tie downs for roofing beams and other simple additions that will keep homes together when wind is blowing in via a single open entrance.
Of course, there's not much you can do about trees falling on your homes either.
I think there are well meaning ISPs who block outgoing 25, and not so decent ISPs. Earthlink, on this issue at least, is trying to be one of the good guys.