> Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell)
It's called a "franchise". The govrrnment of the state or city allows only one company to run wires in the city. In turn, the company helps fund the politicians campaign. It was a long time ago that Bell did it, and of course for phone service most people now use wireless. Now, these government- mandated monopolies, called franchises, affect us most regarding cable TV companies, who also provide internet service. In most cities, only one provider is allowed to run cables; competition is effectively illegal. In a few of the largest cities, like New York, it's divided up by neighborhoods. The New York map is interesting- only Comcast can serve one side of the street, the other side of the street is only Cox . It's illegal for Cox to put a cable across the street and compete with Comcast.
> while Glass-Steagall was in effect, banks were BORING AS HELL for 50 years of economic stability. What happened after Wall Street got the rules changed: the savings and loans scandals in the 1980's, Enron in the 1990's
I hate to be the one to point this out, but Glass-Steagall was repealed at the end of 1999, allowing banks to begin expanding into investments in the mid 2000s. The problems you pointed out were while Glass-Steagall was in full effect.
Thanks, that's much clearer. I do have one question which should clarify further.
Does your position mean that the KKK and Hitler were just fine, or did the violate people's right? Because the KKK claimed was able to do bad things, does that mean they had the right to, and because their victims weren't always able to defend themselves, themselves victims rights were not violated, because they had no rights?
I'm unclear because although you say rights "are something" that needs to be defended, and that the government should defend rights, you also say that rights do not exist, until AFTER a person claims and defends them.
I don't see how both can be true. If there are no natural rights of man, rights do not pre-exist until AFTER the person defends them, how can you say that government _should_ defend something that doesn't exist?
Assume "rights" is, as you suggest, nothing more than "the strong can subjugate the weak". When you say government should protect rights, that would "government should protect the ability of the strong to subjugate the weak"?
Once upon a time banks didn't sell their loans, that's true, but not really relevant because that was prior to Fannie Mae - in 1938. By the 1970s, most mortgages were probably sold at least once, not kept on the issuers books. Mortgage-backed securities aren't a new thing. Assigning top credit ratings to low tranche ones was new.
It's also disingenuous to suggest that Glass-Steagall, which FORCED commercial banks to sell off their mortgages if they wanted the diversification of MBS, had prevented it. Quite the opposite.
The software piece you mentioned for turning scans into nice clean rectangles exists as "unpaper". Here's one fork: https://www.flameeyes.eu/proje...
The people who have bothered to fork and improve unpaper probably did so because they did a project similar to yours, so you might ask them about other tips and resources.
As someone else said, while pdf is convenient for READING book, it's not a particularly great format for archiving a collection of images which you may want to convert to another format later. There are several good grayscale image fomats to choose from. To order those images into a cohesive document, perhaps with separate chapters, one could produce html via a tiny Perl or shell script. That would preserve the images in their native format for later conversion as needed in the future.
Yes, the banks made loans that would "fail", to use your word. Why did they suddenly start doing that? Why did banks, all of the sudden, start handing money to people who couldn't repay? Two reasons. First, because it had been arranged that bad loans, loans that would fail, would still be profitable.
The noble intent of the dems was to encourage (and force) banks to make loans to people whom they thought "should" be able to own a home, because it would be more fair if everyone could own a home. That's a noble goal. By artificially making that profitable, they have the banks the opportunity to make make money by writing bad loans. When banks got a new opportunity to make money, they sure did so. You can sure blame the banks, they knowingly wrote loans in which a high percentage would fail, since they were assured they'd make money anyway. You assign blame to them, but then what?
You can approach in a solution in either of two ways. They didn't make these bad loans before, when writing a bad loan meant that they lost money; so you can go back to that, you can say "if you write a bad loan, that's on you, you lose your own money". But then you can't also force them to make bad loans. Alternately, you can double down. You can write more laws to manipulate the market further. But remember, laws manipulating the mortgage market are what started the whole mess. Yet another law will surely have further unintended consequences. Then you need another law or three to fix those side effects.
Again, the intent is noble and good, yet when you start artificially manipulating markets on a national scale their will be side-effects. Unintended consequences will happen.
What actually happened is that the Clintons, as liberals, are a particular type of optimists. They focus more on ideals, on "imagine if" than on what could go wrong, or reasons why the idea hasn't worked well before. So they think "wouldn't it be great if everyone, absolutely everyone, could buy a house (without explicitly considering that includes people who haven't managed to get a raise since they started working at 16 years old, so are still close to minimum wage). That's not -bad- thinking per se, it's just -different- than the more pessimistic conservative view. So anyway the Clintons and other Dems decide to order banks to loan money to people who previously didn't get loans because it was unlikely they'd be able to make the payments.
HOWEVER, eight of the top ten contributors to the Clinton campaign funds were banks and Wall Street firms. So if they were going to order their contributors to make these loans, they had to ALSO make arrangements so that the banks wouldn't lose shit tons of money. Remember, previously the banks were making loans that made them money. Now the Dems want them to make loans that would normally LOSE money, so they have to fix that, they come up with a way for bad loans to be money-makers.
As required, the banks make the loans and as planned they launder them for a profit. It works! Here's the rub, though - the banks saw that the new laws worked and allowed them to make money on loans that would be foreclosed. Banks like making money, so they made more bad loans than the Dems had forced them to.
Easy mortgages, even for people without steady income to make the payments, meant that more people could buy houses. They might not be able to keep up the payments for 30 years, but they could buy. In other words, the DEMAND for single-family homes increased. Increased demand, in an industry in which supply can't instantly increase to match, means prices increased. So the price of houses went up.
With prices increasing, people wanted to buy (in order to make money) and banks didn't mind foreclosures so much - they could foreclose a home with $100k owed on it and sell the home for $130k. So banks were happy to keep making loans to less-qualified purchasers.
This was the "vicious cycle " - quickly increasing prices (profits) meant more people wanted to buy, and banks wanted to lend more. More lending and more buyers increasing prices more, sending prices upward even further.
Of course eventually home prices couldn't keep going up, and the bad loans couldn't be repackaged and resold forever, and it all came crashing down. The bigger problem was, that ledt the banks scared and short on cash, some desperately short on cash. Being so short on cash, the banks became hesitant to loan their remaining cash out for ANY investment- building a new store, seasonal fluctuations in their clients' businesses, etc. That left people and businesses without the same ready access to loans (credit) of all types. American culture has long assumed credit, borrowing money, was how things are done. Businesses didn't save up to buy new equipment or replace equipment, they always borrowed to buy stuff, or leased, which is the same thing with different paperwork. The credit crunch left businesses and individuals unable to continue business as usual.
To quickly summarize all that: Clinton and Dems wanted broke people to buy houses. They arranged for banks to profit from loaning to people who couldn't repay. More people buying houses = house prices go up. Banks loaned a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't repay. Bubble popped. Banks had no cash left. People and businesses couldn't get credit.:(
Do you have some relevant point you're trying to make? If so, please state it plainly and we can see if it a) makes sense and b) is relevant to this discussion. My best guess is that you're trying to find a cute way of saying one of the following:
Sometimes people do bad things. Often governments infringe rights that than protect them.
Actually the program was created in 2008/2009, while the Democrats controlled everything- the House, Senate, and White House. Additional funding was added later by the Democrat-controlled Senate while Republicans argued against it. http://graphics.latimes.com/mi...
There are two main reasons that line of thinking can't work, the plain languages of the Constitution and logic.
The Bill of Rights is mostly a list of things the government "shall not infringe", things the government can not do. The government may shall not infringe THE right of ______, the right of _______, etc. It's a list of things the government can't mess with, so obviously the government didn't create them. Note also the Constitution says "THE right of", not "A (newly created) right of". The language is plain that the right existed before the Constitution was written, and before the government existed. Our federal government could not have created something before the fedral government existed, therefore rights cannot have been created by the government any more than you could have created your own grandparents.
Further, consider what a right is, the definition of the word. If the right to free speech meant that you could say what the government (or the majority) wants you to say, that would be no right at all. What makes it a right, the very definition of a right, is that it cannot be taken away (only violated), neither by the government not by the majority aka social contract. If the government gave you your rights, they could legitimately take them away. Since the government can only violate or protect your rights, not remove them (by definition) , the rights cannot have been created or granted by government. They must be a intrinsic property of the dignity of man.
You're not wrong. On the other hand, it'd cost about $3 to replace the microcontroller with a new one. One flashed with the Arduino bootloader would be simple to use. (You don't need the whole Arduino board) .
If you think having Americans do it will make it secure, you clearly haven't seen much American-written code. Hint - Microsoft is an American company, Linux is from Finland and all over the world.
H1-B abuse is a problem ; a problem unrelated to security. US programmers are actually LESS cognizant of long-term consequences and security than are the Chinese, Japanese, or eastern Europe.
Forward the email as an ATTACHMENT, or otherwise ensure full headers are included. Printing would also work, but be sure all the headers are included. There will be 6-30 lines headers, some of which start with the word "Received:". The "received" headers are important.
A photographer also owns copyright to images they take without consent, the two are unrelated. The standard model release many photographers use has separate sections for each. They do cross a bit, I suppose , if the image happens to be a copy of a copyright protected work - a photo of a painting.
Privacy is a separate issue. A peeping Tom owns the copyright to his pictures- that doesn't mean privacy laws disappear.
Again, I wouldn't have ruled for the woman, based on the facts we know and what little German law we know. The reason I wouldn't is because I don't know of any concept in German law that gives her the right to consent or not at this point.
> The judge is effectively reversing the burden of proof..
The burden of proof relates to proving facts, not matters of law. The fact is that she does not consent to his possession of these private pictures of her. The interesting question is a question of LAW: under the applicable law, does it matter whether or not she consents? A question of law such as this is decided by a judge reading the text of the law and considering the reasoning used in prior cases. There is no fact to prove, so burden of proof isn't relevant. The judge is deciding whether German law allows him to keep "her" private photos without her consent. The facts (which can be proven or disproven) are not in dispute.
I was actually thinking of Albert Gonzalez and the rest of ShadowCrew, arrested for TJ Maxx, Dave & Busters, and others.
Indeed in the Target case the original perpetrators seem to be in Russia and Ukraine, so arrests have been of individuals with dozens to hundreds of counterfeit cards in their possession at the time of their arrest, who were responsible for anywhere between tens of thousands to millions in fraudulent transactions with the Target data. So still not insignificant, though they probably weren't the original perpetrators.
I'm not a German lawyer either, though I was once an American student of the law.
Not being any kind of expert in German law, I don't know that under German law the photos ARE his property. They may be community property. German law might provide her with applicable privacy rights. The "right to be forgotten " reminds us that not every country has the same laws as the US.
Ignore it, rather than thoroughly investigating and catching the perpetrators like they did? I don't know about the outcome in every single case, but I have researched and written about Target and TJ Maxx. Those feds did their job. Several federal agencies and some state are very active in investigating the types of cases you mentioned. Also, I've spoken to the FBI team primarily interested in what seem to be small-time attacks, who track patterns of malware on consumer desktops etc. If you let them know about attacks you have experienced you may not personally hear back a out the prosecution, but they do include your report in their investigation of trends.
Half the government is part of DHS. This is because during discussions of what went wrong systemically after 9/11, noone would agree who should be the lead agency on terrorism. Everybody agreed coordination was needed, and everybody thought they should be the lead.
The FBI , border patrol, everybody wanted to keep their own autonomy and didn't want to be put under another agency or department's leadership. So Andrew Card (the guy who whispered the news of the 9/11 "plane crashes" to Bush in the famous video) gathered a bunch of people in White House basement to figure out the politics. Trying to find a way of organizing things where coordination would be -possible- which wouldn't be doa due to turf wars, they decided anybody and everybody having anything to do with security would be lumped together under a brand-new department. Source: personal conversation with Andrew Card
What you say makes sense for TAKING the photos, doing the actual photography.
One could argue that during the relationship she consented to him having those photos and viewing photos of her private parts, and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today. If I were the judge, I probably wouldn't make that ruling, but it's logically consistent. If I were the judge, I'd probably tell him "don't be a dick" and try to find a way to encourage him to grow up, without setting precedent. For example if they are also fighting over some physical property, I might suggest to his attorney that being a dickhead doesn't endear him to the court on the issue of the television set or whatever else they are arguing about.
As I said: > weight is in fact defined as 1 gram mass X local gravity / standard gravity
Are you having trouble understanding what "local gravity" means? Again, as I told you about three posts ago, at MSL on earth, 1 gram weight is DEFINED as 1 gram mass. That's the definition of the gram weight, whether you like it or not.
For anyone that read that and was confused by "moving in six dimensions", consider that an aircraft can MOVE to the left, it LEAN to the left, or it can be POINTED to the left. Aircraft don't have tires in contact with the ground, so with a crosswind you can be pointing to the left while moving to the right. It can GO up or it can POINT up. So the six dimensions of movement are: X Y Z Yaw Pitch Roll
Slashdot Mirror
> Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell)
It's called a "franchise". The govrrnment of the state or city allows only one company to run wires in the city. In turn, the company helps fund the politicians campaign. It was a long time ago that Bell did it, and of course for phone service most people now use wireless. Now, these government- mandated monopolies, called franchises, affect us most regarding cable TV companies, who also provide internet service. In most cities, only one provider is allowed to run cables; competition is effectively illegal. In a few of the largest cities, like New York, it's divided up by neighborhoods. The New York map is interesting- only Comcast can serve one side of the street, the other side of the street is only Cox . It's illegal for Cox to put a cable across the street and compete with Comcast.
> while Glass-Steagall was in effect, banks were BORING AS HELL for 50 years of economic stability. What happened after Wall Street got the rules changed: the savings and loans scandals in the 1980's, Enron in the 1990's
I hate to be the one to point this out, but Glass-Steagall was repealed at the end of 1999, allowing banks to begin expanding into investments in the mid 2000s. The problems you pointed out were while Glass-Steagall was in full effect.
Thanks, that's much clearer. I do have one question which should clarify further.
Does your position mean that the KKK and Hitler were just fine, or did the violate people's right? Because the KKK claimed was able to do bad things, does that mean they had the right to, and because their victims weren't always able to defend themselves, themselves victims rights were not violated, because they had no rights?
I'm unclear because although you say rights "are something" that needs to be defended, and that the government should defend rights, you also say that rights do not exist, until AFTER a person claims and defends them.
I don't see how both can be true. If there are no natural rights of man, rights do not pre-exist until AFTER the person defends them, how can you say that government _should_ defend something that doesn't exist?
Assume "rights" is, as you suggest, nothing more than "the strong can subjugate the weak". When you say government should protect rights, that would "government should protect the ability of the strong to subjugate the weak"?
Once upon a time banks didn't sell their loans, that's true, but not really relevant because that was prior to Fannie Mae - in 1938. By the 1970s, most mortgages were probably sold at least once, not kept on the issuers books. Mortgage-backed securities aren't a new thing. Assigning top credit ratings to low tranche ones was new.
It's also disingenuous to suggest that Glass-Steagall, which FORCED commercial banks to sell off their mortgages if they wanted the diversification of MBS, had prevented it. Quite the opposite.
The software piece you mentioned for turning scans into nice clean rectangles exists as "unpaper". Here's one fork: https://www.flameeyes.eu/proje...
The people who have bothered to fork and improve unpaper probably did so because they did a project similar to yours, so you might ask them about other tips and resources.
As someone else said, while pdf is convenient for READING book, it's not a particularly great format for archiving a collection of images which you may want to convert to another format later. There are several good grayscale image fomats to choose from. To order those images into a cohesive document, perhaps with separate chapters, one could produce html via a tiny Perl or shell script. That would preserve the images in their native format for later conversion as needed in the future.
Yes, the banks made loans that would "fail", to use your word. Why did they suddenly start doing that? Why did banks, all of the sudden, start handing money to people who couldn't repay? Two reasons. First, because it had been arranged that bad loans, loans that would fail, would still be profitable.
The noble intent of the dems was to encourage (and force) banks to make loans to people whom they thought "should" be able to own a home, because it would be more fair if everyone could own a home. That's a noble goal. By artificially making that profitable, they have the banks the opportunity to make make money by writing bad loans. When banks got a new opportunity to make money, they sure did so. You can sure blame the banks, they knowingly wrote loans in which a high percentage would fail, since they were assured they'd make money anyway. You assign blame to them, but then what?
You can approach in a solution in either of two ways. They didn't make these bad loans before, when writing a bad loan meant that they lost money; so you can go back to that, you can say "if you write a bad loan, that's on you, you lose your own money". But then you can't also force them to make bad loans. Alternately, you can double down. You can write more laws to manipulate the market further. But remember, laws manipulating the mortgage market are what started the whole mess. Yet another law will surely have further unintended consequences. Then you need another law or three to fix those side effects.
Again, the intent is noble and good, yet when you start artificially manipulating markets on a national scale their will be side-effects. Unintended consequences will happen.
What actually happened is that the Clintons, as liberals, are a particular type of optimists. They focus more on ideals, on "imagine if" than on what could go wrong, or reasons why the idea hasn't worked well before. So they think "wouldn't it be great if everyone, absolutely everyone, could buy a house (without explicitly considering that includes people who haven't managed to get a raise since they started working at 16 years old, so are still close to minimum wage). That's not -bad- thinking per se, it's just -different- than the more pessimistic conservative view. So anyway the Clintons and other Dems decide to order banks to loan money to people who previously didn't get loans because it was unlikely they'd be able to make the payments.
HOWEVER, eight of the top ten contributors to the Clinton campaign funds were banks and Wall Street firms. So if they were going to order their contributors to make these loans, they had to ALSO make arrangements so that the banks wouldn't lose shit tons of money. Remember, previously the banks were making loans that made them money. Now the Dems want them to make loans that would normally LOSE money, so they have to fix that, they come up with a way for bad loans to be money-makers.
As required, the banks make the loans and as planned they launder them for a profit. It works! Here's the rub, though - the banks saw that the new laws worked and allowed them to make money on loans that would be foreclosed. Banks like making money, so they made more bad loans than the Dems had forced them to.
Easy mortgages, even for people without steady income to make the payments, meant that more people could buy houses. They might not be able to keep up the payments for 30 years, but they could buy. In other words, the DEMAND for single-family homes increased. Increased demand, in an industry in which supply can't instantly increase to match, means prices increased. So the price of houses went up.
With prices increasing, people wanted to buy (in order to make money) and banks didn't mind foreclosures so much - they could foreclose a home with $100k owed on it and sell the home for $130k. So banks were happy to keep making loans to less-qualified purchasers.
This was the "vicious cycle " - quickly increasing prices (profits) meant more people wanted to buy, and banks wanted to lend more. More lending and more buyers increasing prices more, sending prices upward even further.
Of course eventually home prices couldn't keep going up, and the bad loans couldn't be repackaged and resold forever, and it all came crashing down. The bigger problem was, that ledt the banks scared and short on cash, some desperately short on cash. Being so short on cash, the banks became hesitant to loan their remaining cash out for ANY investment- building a new store, seasonal fluctuations in their clients' businesses, etc. That left people and businesses without the same ready access to loans (credit) of all types. American culture has long assumed credit, borrowing money, was how things are done. Businesses didn't save up to buy new equipment or replace equipment, they always borrowed to buy stuff, or leased, which is the same thing with different paperwork. The credit crunch left businesses and individuals unable to continue business as usual.
To quickly summarize all that: :(
Clinton and Dems wanted broke people to buy houses.
They arranged for banks to profit from loaning to people who couldn't repay.
More people buying houses = house prices go up.
Banks loaned a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't repay.
Bubble popped.
Banks had no cash left.
People and businesses couldn't get credit.
Do you have some relevant point you're trying to make? If so, please state it plainly and we can see if it a) makes sense and b) is relevant to this discussion. My best guess is that you're trying to find a cute way of saying one of the following:
Sometimes people do bad things.
Often governments infringe rights that than protect them.
Both are obviously true. And?
Actually the program was created in 2008/2009, while the Democrats controlled everything- the House, Senate, and White House. Additional funding was added later by the Democrat-controlled Senate while Republicans argued against it.
http://graphics.latimes.com/mi...
There are two main reasons that line of thinking can't work, the plain languages of the Constitution and logic.
The Bill of Rights is mostly a list of things the government "shall not infringe", things the government can not do. The government may shall not infringe THE right of ______, the right of _______, etc. It's a list of things the government can't mess with, so obviously the government didn't create them. Note also the Constitution says "THE right of", not "A (newly created) right of". The language is plain that the right existed before the Constitution was written, and before the government existed. Our federal government could not have created something before the fedral government existed, therefore rights cannot have been created by the government any more than you could have created your own grandparents.
Further, consider what a right is, the definition of the word. If the right to free speech meant that you could say what the government (or the majority) wants you to say, that would be no right at all. What makes it a right, the very definition of a right, is that it cannot be taken away (only violated), neither by the government not by the majority aka social contract. If the government gave you your rights, they could legitimately take them away. Since the government can only violate or protect your rights, not remove them (by definition) , the rights cannot have been created or granted by government. They must be a intrinsic property of the dignity of man.
You're not wrong. On the other hand, it'd cost about $3 to replace the microcontroller with a new one. One flashed with the Arduino bootloader would be simple to use. (You don't need the whole Arduino board) .
> For less that 2 MB using the Sosh price, I could have bought a month with Free just to visit the US. I'm wondering why my carrier still has clients.
You ARE the client who still keeps them. Why tf are you still with them?
If you think having Americans do it will make it secure, you clearly haven't seen much American-written code. Hint - Microsoft is an American company, Linux is from Finland and all over the world.
H1-B abuse is a problem ; a problem unrelated to security. US programmers are actually LESS cognizant of long-term consequences and security than are the Chinese, Japanese, or eastern Europe.
Forward the email as an ATTACHMENT, or otherwise ensure full headers are included. Printing would also work, but be sure all the headers are included. There will be 6-30 lines headers, some of which start with the word "Received:". The "received" headers are important.
A photographer also owns copyright to images they take without consent, the two are unrelated. The standard model release many photographers use has separate sections for each. They do cross a bit, I suppose , if the image happens to be a copy of a copyright protected work - a photo of a painting.
Privacy is a separate issue. A peeping Tom owns the copyright to his pictures- that doesn't mean privacy laws disappear.
Again, I wouldn't have ruled for the woman, based on the facts we know and what little German law we know. The reason I wouldn't is because I don't know of any concept in German law that gives her the right to consent or not at this point.
> The judge is effectively reversing the burden of proof..
The burden of proof relates to proving facts, not matters of law.
The fact is that she does not consent to his possession of these private pictures of her. The interesting question is a question of LAW: under the applicable law, does it matter whether or not she consents? A question of law such as this is decided by a judge reading the text of the law and considering the reasoning used in prior cases. There is no fact to prove, so burden of proof isn't relevant. The judge is deciding whether German law allows him to keep "her" private photos without her consent. The facts (which can be proven or disproven) are not in dispute.
I was actually thinking of Albert Gonzalez and the rest of ShadowCrew, arrested for TJ Maxx, Dave & Busters, and others.
Indeed in the Target case the original perpetrators seem to be in Russia and Ukraine, so arrests have been of individuals with dozens to hundreds of counterfeit cards in their possession at the time of their arrest, who were responsible for anywhere between tens of thousands to millions in fraudulent transactions with the Target data. So still not insignificant, though they probably weren't the original perpetrators.
I'm not a German lawyer either, though I was once an American student of the law.
Not being any kind of expert in German law, I don't know that under German law the photos ARE his property. They may be community property. German law might provide her with applicable privacy rights. The "right to be forgotten " reminds us that not every country has the same laws as the US.
> Just ignore those two million target customers
Ignore it, rather than thoroughly investigating and catching the perpetrators like they did? I don't know about the outcome in every single case, but I have researched and written about Target and TJ Maxx. Those feds did their job. Several federal agencies and some state are very active in investigating the types of cases you mentioned. Also, I've spoken to the FBI team primarily interested in what seem to be small-time attacks, who track patterns of malware on consumer desktops etc. If you let them know about attacks you have experienced you may not personally hear back a out the prosecution, but they do include your report in their investigation of trends.
Half the government is part of DHS. This is because during discussions of what went wrong systemically after 9/11, noone would agree who should be the lead agency on terrorism. Everybody agreed coordination was needed, and everybody thought they should be the lead.
The FBI , border patrol, everybody wanted to keep their own autonomy and didn't want to be put under another agency or department's leadership. So Andrew Card (the guy who whispered the news of the 9/11 "plane crashes" to Bush in the famous video) gathered a bunch of people in White House basement to figure out the politics. Trying to find a way of organizing things where coordination would be -possible- which wouldn't be doa due to turf wars, they decided anybody and everybody having anything to do with security would be lumped together under a brand-new department.
Source: personal conversation with Andrew Card
What you say makes sense for TAKING the photos, doing the actual photography.
One could argue that during the relationship she consented to him having those photos and viewing photos of her private parts, and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today. If I were the judge, I probably wouldn't make that ruling, but it's logically consistent. If I were the judge, I'd probably tell him "don't be a dick" and try to find a way to encourage him to grow up, without setting precedent. For example if they are also fighting over some physical property, I might suggest to his attorney that being a dickhead doesn't endear him to the court on the issue of the television set or whatever else they are arguing about.
AA batteries are toxic and the chemicals used to manufacture them are toxic.
Same with solar-electric, household bleach cleaners, etc.
Phosphoric acid (coca-cola) is corrosive AND quite bad for you.
Interesting facts.
PU-238 is hard to make.
AA batteries are easy to make.
Hamsters make themselves.
PU-238 is clearly the least practical solution of those mentioned. :)
As I said:
> weight is in fact defined as 1 gram mass X local gravity / standard gravity
Are you having trouble understanding what "local gravity" means? Again, as I told you about three posts ago, at MSL on earth, 1 gram weight is DEFINED as 1 gram mass. That's the definition of the gram weight, whether you like it or not.
For anyone that read that and was confused by "moving in six dimensions", consider that an aircraft can MOVE to the left, it LEAN to the left, or it can be POINTED to the left. Aircraft don't have tires in contact with the ground, so with a crosswind you can be pointing to the left while moving to the right. It can GO up or it can POINT up. So the six dimensions of movement are:
X
Y
Z
Yaw
Pitch
Roll