how's the weather in the all-logical-universe in which you live? good luck with that. last time i heard of a caesar threatening to cut the praetorian's pay...
in seriousness though, away from insulting your lack of joke-taking ability, you are also ignorant as to how cops and the real world works. i can think of many ways that cops could still effectively get around the camera and it's ultimately being used in court. any number of things could be done to disable to camera and appear innocuous.. (how about black tape taken out of your pocket off camera.. OMG genius!!! couple that with the old 'hand over your badge' technique, and good luck picking one out of a lineup with your 2 swollen shut eyes.)
but more importantly, any record could get 'lost' just as easily. so long as the means of monitoring is physically in the realm of the cops themselves, you can count on them finding ways to deal with the evidence.. maybe not in all circumstances, but probably in many where it matters. if you think it can't or won't, then turn on the news and see the countless stories of late where with the whole 'country' watching, evidence/emails etc. have 'disappeared'. oops!
this is not to say that the whole idea is without merit - far from it. but if you think you can cure behavior that is a function of a rotting and broken widespread mindset with just a piece of hardware, you're in for a shock.
step 2: place small piece of said tape over camera, while verbally saying loud enough to be recorded "hey, is that an EMP?!?!? oh my god! it's coming right at me!!!!!"
step 3: proceed with your typical wednesday beatdowns.
It's a real shame this has been upmodded. Saying 'Egyptian Muslims' have called for the pyramid's destruction, when in fact, it was one egyptian jihadist is like saying "American Christians" call for the eradication of All Non-White Humans just because one ex-con neo-nazi in wisconsin with a youtube channel calls for it. Your statement is inflammatory, bigoted, and shamefully racist.
Secondly, and a bit off-topic - while i find it abhorrent that the taliban destroyed the buddha statues, after spending a lot of time in southeast asia and visiting many buddhist temples (and being very appreciate of the teachings of the buddha), i always find it remarkably paradoxical that all these statues of buddha exist. They are a part of our human cultural history and should be absolutely preserved, but we should learn from the paradox they present. What many people don't know is that (according to the story), before the buddha died, he left a few explicit statements and instructions.. 1) hey y'all... im NOT coming back. don't wait for a second coming. im OUT. 2) DON'T make any statues of me. im not a god. i don't want to be worshipped. seriously. and 3) if you MUST do something.. you can go visit 4 places that i dig.. birthplace, deathplace, where he achieved enlightenment, and the deer park where he gave his first teaching. (ive been to 3 of the 4 fyi).
people just can't help themselves.. we get a genuinely inspired and evolved human being, he leaves instructions, and people twist and distort it to the point it becomes a religion used to manipulate people instead of inspire to evolve. It's a curious thing that all the 'teachers' that came basically said the same thing.. Judaeo/Christian ten commandments.. don't make graven images.... Islam: Don't make images of the Prophet Muhammed.. Buddhism - no statues. Maybe their original message was the same.. not don't do these things or suffer retribution.. but dont do these things because by doing so, you're missing the point. As the saying goes, 'the finger is not the moon.'
lastly, i like to joke that after buddha died, people looked at each other and said "you know.. he DID say no statues... but did he say no GOLDEN or GIANT statues??? obviously he'd be cool with that! huzzah!"
well, considering that recent history has shown corporate america doesn't hesitate to hand over all personal data to govt authorities at the request, never mind a court order, i think the answer is a resounding yes.
why on earth would 'we' want to disable their gear? "We" armed them to begin with, back when they were 'moderates fighting assad'.. aka, pawns to remove assad and allow a saudi-backed natural gas pipeline to run through syria from qatar - breaking up gazprom's european monopoly.
When their false flag attacks failed to give the US the greenlight to go in, they were beefed up to the point where now they're "ISIS". "We" left them the equipment as a gift, and a few beheading videos later, the drums of war repeat.. oh, what's that you say? "We" might need to go into Syria to "defeat the barbarians"? how convenient. bad kabuki.
or.. just don't offer the service at all (as they currently do) and truly minimize the cost. the initiating novella notwithstanding, i think you're continuing to devote way too much time and effort to this.
p.s. the number's i used were illustrative only. i pulled them out of the air. also, every logistical enterprise has costs which you are ignoring.
p.p.s. now i'm out. good deed served to those interested. for god's sake, please let it go now.
this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those familiar with either financial accounting or microeconomics, and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.
To house that inventory (inventory being an element of working capital, along with accounts receivable and payables etc) of phones costs money, and do so means that you have to take into account the cost of that money. If you need to borrow it, then you have to pay interest on the balance. If you have the extra cash, then you need to take into account the opportunity cost of using your cash for inventory instead of, say, marketing or hiring another salesperson.
to use a numbers example, lets say you are the store owner, and you determine you need 50 phones on hand at any given time. you need to pay $50 upfront to house each phone, or cough up 50 x 50 = $2500 upfront. When a customer comes in for a replacement, you give them one out of your inventory, and then need to order a replacement to top-you-off back to a standing inventory of 50 phones. The give-out/re-topping off is a net money neutral transaction (at least theoretically), but as you will always have to top off your inventory, you will never see your $2500 again unless you liquidate, which as long as you're a going concern, you won't do. Add onto that the fact that holding that inventory exposes you to obscolesence risks, and so your inventory, even in a liquidation scenario, might only be worth, say $1000 to you. So you have capital risk in addition to the costs of funding the inventory. Now multiply that $2500 by the however many thousands of retail shops you care to (and/or increase the number of phones needed in inventory) and you start talking real money.
Now if the manufacturer wants to finance the whole shebang instead of the retail store owner, then great. but SOMEONE has to finance it. and it's much easier (and cheaper) to make the customer wait and only order them as-needed.
my only problem with this, is that i'm 99% sure that a great number of people will read the first 2 lines, and stop there - taking comfort in their ignorance of the sarcasm.
first and foremost, if you want to give someone cash for their bitcoins, im pretty sure you could find a willing participant on the other side.maybe it's at a discount to the nominal exchange rate (but presumably not as onerous as the 30-40% that 'better call saul' quoted walter white).
in any case, w/r/t money laundering, while technically correct on some points, your argument misses the larger purpose. money laundering is, at it's core, a means by which either illegal or simply non-tax-reported income can be re-introduced into the economy without alerting authorities for either purchases of goods/services, or for electronic transfer (ie, wiring money instead of trying to cross the border with suitcases full of cash).
to the extent that btc becomes ubiquitous in use, acceptance, and most importantly, the average persons 'wallet', then cash need not be *any* part of the initial illegal/untaxed transaction... while still providing purchasing power into the real economy for the new BTC owner, as well as immediate means of electronic transfer.
but they have all this VC cash burning a hole in their pockets! reminds me of steve martin in My Blue Heaven explaining why he had a car-trunk full of copies of the same (stolen) book.... 'in case i want to read it more than once.'
Slashdot Mirror
how's the weather in the all-logical-universe in which you live? good luck with that. last time i heard of a caesar threatening to cut the praetorian's pay...
in seriousness though, away from insulting your lack of joke-taking ability, you are also ignorant as to how cops and the real world works. i can think of many ways that cops could still effectively get around the camera and it's ultimately being used in court. any number of things could be done to disable to camera and appear innocuous.. (how about black tape taken out of your pocket off camera.. OMG genius!!! couple that with the old 'hand over your badge' technique, and good luck picking one out of a lineup with your 2 swollen shut eyes.)
but more importantly, any record could get 'lost' just as easily. so long as the means of monitoring is physically in the realm of the cops themselves, you can count on them finding ways to deal with the evidence.. maybe not in all circumstances, but probably in many where it matters. if you think it can't or won't, then turn on the news and see the countless stories of late where with the whole 'country' watching, evidence/emails etc. have 'disappeared'. oops!
this is not to say that the whole idea is without merit - far from it. but if you think you can cure behavior that is a function of a rotting and broken widespread mindset with just a piece of hardware, you're in for a shock.
what's the difference between a joke and 3 dicks? (hint: in answer, substitue 'BitZream' and whoever down-voted me for 'your mom')
step 1: purchase black tape.
step 2: place small piece of said tape over camera, while verbally saying loud enough to be recorded "hey, is that an EMP?!?!? oh my god! it's coming right at me!!!!!"
step 3: proceed with your typical wednesday beatdowns.
we can also design their government healthcare website for them
deserves a 'funny upvote' - but im out of points :)
right on. i just replied saying basically the same thing (not having seen your response).
It's a real shame this has been upmodded. Saying 'Egyptian Muslims' have called for the pyramid's destruction, when in fact, it was one egyptian jihadist is like saying "American Christians" call for the eradication of All Non-White Humans just because one ex-con neo-nazi in wisconsin with a youtube channel calls for it. Your statement is inflammatory, bigoted, and shamefully racist.
Secondly, and a bit off-topic - while i find it abhorrent that the taliban destroyed the buddha statues, after spending a lot of time in southeast asia and visiting many buddhist temples (and being very appreciate of the teachings of the buddha), i always find it remarkably paradoxical that all these statues of buddha exist. They are a part of our human cultural history and should be absolutely preserved, but we should learn from the paradox they present. What many people don't know is that (according to the story), before the buddha died, he left a few explicit statements and instructions.. 1) hey y'all... im NOT coming back. don't wait for a second coming. im OUT. 2) DON'T make any statues of me. im not a god. i don't want to be worshipped. seriously. and 3) if you MUST do something.. you can go visit 4 places that i dig.. birthplace, deathplace, where he achieved enlightenment, and the deer park where he gave his first teaching. (ive been to 3 of the 4 fyi).
people just can't help themselves.. we get a genuinely inspired and evolved human being, he leaves instructions, and people twist and distort it to the point it becomes a religion used to manipulate people instead of inspire to evolve. It's a curious thing that all the 'teachers' that came basically said the same thing.. Judaeo/Christian ten commandments.. don't make graven images.... Islam: Don't make images of the Prophet Muhammed.. Buddhism - no statues. Maybe their original message was the same.. not don't do these things or suffer retribution.. but dont do these things because by doing so, you're missing the point. As the saying goes, 'the finger is not the moon.'
lastly, i like to joke that after buddha died, people looked at each other and said "you know.. he DID say no statues... but did he say no GOLDEN or GIANT statues??? obviously he'd be cool with that! huzzah!"
'laws and rules in place' no longer mean anything.
well, considering that recent history has shown corporate america doesn't hesitate to hand over all personal data to govt authorities at the request, never mind a court order, i think the answer is a resounding yes.
why on earth would 'we' want to disable their gear? "We" armed them to begin with, back when they were 'moderates fighting assad'.. aka, pawns to remove assad and allow a saudi-backed natural gas pipeline to run through syria from qatar - breaking up gazprom's european monopoly.
When their false flag attacks failed to give the US the greenlight to go in, they were beefed up to the point where now they're "ISIS". "We" left them the equipment as a gift, and a few beheading videos later, the drums of war repeat.. oh, what's that you say? "We" might need to go into Syria to "defeat the barbarians"? how convenient. bad kabuki.
Will the insurance company furnish the data to law enforcement on request or court order.
is this really even a question?
just saying..
you need a new hobby.
or.. just don't offer the service at all (as they currently do) and truly minimize the cost. the initiating novella notwithstanding, i think you're continuing to devote way too much time and effort to this.
p.s. the number's i used were illustrative only. i pulled them out of the air. also, every logistical enterprise has costs which you are ignoring.
p.p.s. now i'm out. good deed served to those interested. for god's sake, please let it go now.
this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those familiar with either financial accounting or microeconomics, and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.
To house that inventory (inventory being an element of working capital, along with accounts receivable and payables etc) of phones costs money, and do so means that you have to take into account the cost of that money. If you need to borrow it, then you have to pay interest on the balance. If you have the extra cash, then you need to take into account the opportunity cost of using your cash for inventory instead of, say, marketing or hiring another salesperson.
to use a numbers example, lets say you are the store owner, and you determine you need 50 phones on hand at any given time. you need to pay $50 upfront to house each phone, or cough up 50 x 50 = $2500 upfront. When a customer comes in for a replacement, you give them one out of your inventory, and then need to order a replacement to top-you-off back to a standing inventory of 50 phones. The give-out/re-topping off is a net money neutral transaction (at least theoretically), but as you will always have to top off your inventory, you will never see your $2500 again unless you liquidate, which as long as you're a going concern, you won't do. Add onto that the fact that holding that inventory exposes you to obscolesence risks, and so your inventory, even in a liquidation scenario, might only be worth, say $1000 to you. So you have capital risk in addition to the costs of funding the inventory. Now multiply that $2500 by the however many thousands of retail shops you care to (and/or increase the number of phones needed in inventory) and you start talking real money.
Now if the manufacturer wants to finance the whole shebang instead of the retail store owner, then great. but SOMEONE has to finance it. and it's much easier (and cheaper) to make the customer wait and only order them as-needed.
good luck with that.
my only problem with this, is that i'm 99% sure that a great number of people will read the first 2 lines, and stop there - taking comfort in their ignorance of the sarcasm.
i like that idea a lot
google winning a $1.3mm award is like you or me finding a crumpled $5 bill on the ground on the way to the liquor store
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
first and foremost, if you want to give someone cash for their bitcoins, im pretty sure you could find a willing participant on the other side.maybe it's at a discount to the nominal exchange rate (but presumably not as onerous as the 30-40% that 'better call saul' quoted walter white).
in any case, w/r/t money laundering, while technically correct on some points, your argument misses the larger purpose. money laundering is, at it's core, a means by which either illegal or simply non-tax-reported income can be re-introduced into the economy without alerting authorities for either purchases of goods/services, or for electronic transfer (ie, wiring money instead of trying to cross the border with suitcases full of cash).
to the extent that btc becomes ubiquitous in use, acceptance, and most importantly, the average persons 'wallet', then cash need not be *any* part of the initial illegal/untaxed transaction... while still providing purchasing power into the real economy for the new BTC owner, as well as immediate means of electronic transfer.
ready guys? 1....2...3.... get him!!!
change your name to Kamin and learn to play the flute.
but they have all this VC cash burning a hole in their pockets! reminds me of steve martin in My Blue Heaven explaining why he had a car-trunk full of copies of the same (stolen) book.... 'in case i want to read it more than once.'