99%+ of scareware is from the same exact kit, and installs the same core exe program, (AV.EXE) in one of three fixed locations. (as super-hidden) This article itself is scareware. The av companies can detect every one of these every time they pop up, there's no "trying to keep up" with this. That's what happens when malware goes commercial as this has. Anyone happen to know offhand who's the source of this malware kit? (url?) I'd be curious to know how much such a kit sells for. Must be cheap if there's 1400 new customers a day.
Give us the meaningful number of unique, new scareware products a day. Or a week or a month. Betting somewhere under 10/month. And if they can't keep up with that, waaaaaah.
The reality is that 30 GB is enough for a HD movie, and we're never going to see these super-discs they keep bragging about. A 51GB HDDVD standard had been approved BT
Transformers bluray, over 40gb. (48?) Was a major PITA to transcode for my AppleTV because of the size x movie length x bitrate made it impossible to encode to a single file below 4gb (appleTV max) at higher than 420p. (also 4mbps max bitrate for appletv) They had to run the bitrate that high on the bluray though because they knew people were going to be slow-mo'ing those transformation sequences and wanted to keep things as sharp as possible.
BUT, iirc, the movie was on the disc twice in different formats, with extra features. The two main feature tracks were over 20gb each. (I think. It's been awhile)
So ya it's amazing how fast 640k is no longer enough.;)
what better way to fund state governments than predating upon the weaknesses of your citizens.
and how does this differ than the state run lotteries or state licensed bars? those are proving to be a tremendous source of state income, and because they're out in the open, subject to close public and legal scrutiny, their ratio of problems-solved to problems-created is very positive.
Too many people seem to think that 100% of gambling is bad. It's like alcohol. Too much of anything is bad. In the end, gambling is going to go the way of prohibition, for exactly the same reasons.
At least keep the money in your state/country. Use some of it to help the people that have a problem with it, and use the rest of it to benefit everyone. Right now, anyone that WANTS to gamble online can, and 100% of that money gets on a plane and leaves the country. Legalizing it isn't going to make it any easier for those with gambling problems to gamble. But it IS going to pipe some of that money into local help for those people, AND keep the rest of the money in the neighborhood.
actually it appears that he [i]made[/i] the post to craigslist, and then made the [i]complaint[/i] also. I find it somewhat entertaining that he didn't get in trouble for appearing to try to sell his children, but instead for reporting to the authorities about someone (himself) trying to do it. (known prank) Apparently making a false report to the police is a bigger deal than trying to sell your kids?
That's a little bit like how MMORPGs work now, though more by necessity than by design.
It's still very possible to design a game where some key components sit server-side and require an internet connection to run. Things that don't require anywhere near the bandwidth of video. I'm surprised we haven't ran into any of that yet.
For example, have the mob's AI done remotely. It would require little more bandwidth than is required now for any online multiplayer FPS game, and if you did get it to work without a network connection, the mobs would just sit there and that would be no fun.
It would also give the game developers the option to "mix things up" from time to time - a boss that you had an easy strategy to beat suddenly "won't fall for that hide-behind-the-pillar trick anymore". More value for your money that way, greatly increases a game's replayability.
Most coders perform best when they are "in the zone", free of distractions, free to concentrate on what they are doing. Focus is important. Coders don't need all day to collaborate, distractions throughout the day are highly destructive to productivity. There NEEDS to be collaboration, but not while you're trying to code. That's what morning meetings are for. Get your communications out of the way, discuss what the goal for the day/week/month is and what's the progress, and then split up and get it done.
If people have an easy opportunity to knock my out of my Zone every 10 minutes to ask a question or bounce an idea off my, I won't get anything done. And what I DO get done will be lower quality. When someone DOES do that to me, I drop what I am doing, completely. I give them whatever interaction they want, and make it crystal clear to them that they have COMPLETELY stopped my work while I interact with them. Trying to multitask a discussion requiring any amount of thinking breeds bugs faster than a bowl of Alpo on a cockroach farm. After they're done, I take a deep breath, try to remember where I was, and work my way back into my Zone and pray Susy doesn't wander back in 20 minutes with some followup questions. Most people quickly come to understand that the work I do is not compatible with multitasking and interruptions, and are more careful about when they interrupt my work. All of the managers I have had understand how this works, and will politely suggest to the coworker "couldn't this have waited until tomorrow morning?", when they'll find I'm MUCH more social.
Or maybe you're one of those rare few that can carry on a conversation and code flawlessly at the same time. Not me, not many of us. Face it, limited autism is conducive to good code.;)
"obstruction of justice" is one of those "bad laws". It's a catch-all, that any cop with an agenda can twist to make whatever you happen to be doing, illegal. "Failure to obey an officer of the law" is another good one. With that particular gem, they basically can tell you to do practically anything (short of something unconstitutional) and if you don't do it, bam, failure to obey, cuff 'im Dano.
Laws like that were passed quite possibly in good faith, to give an officer the ability to stop somthing that clearly SHOULD be illegal but that there wasn't a law on the books at the time. It shifts the job of the officer from enforcing the law to creating and interpreting it. Senators create laws. Juries and judges interpret laws. Officers enforce laws. When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law. Either word it to give more benefit of the doubt, or DON'T make it in the first place.
They would have the sn of the computer and you can report stolen serial numbers to apple, but unless the new owner attempts to register it, apple won't know where it is. Simply using the ipad, or even activating service on it, does not require the sn of the computer.
Though seeing as you can't buy an ipad without getting a contract, it could prove tricky, if at least not somewhat suspicious if someone comes into AT&T store and asks to activate service on it. "Where did you BUY this?" would have to be a question they get asked.
They arrested Rachner for obstruction of justice for not identifying himself.
No, they arrested him for frustrating and pissing them off. They charged him with obstruction of justice as their means of retaliation in an attempt to legally justify his arrest.
ok maybe LaForge moreso... "we can try to reroute a tacheon pulse through the main deflector to..." wait, maybe not. Anyway they were hackers in theory, but in a technobabble kind of way. We rarely got to see Scotty do any hacking, but we sort of took it for granted that there was some going on.
Basically two competing teams have limited time to throw together something from junk or parts to compete against each other. Battles like this usually give you very little idea of what you're going to be required to make until you hit the field, so you have to be skilled at making anything, from anything. That's what hacking is all about. There are several examples of tournaments like this. Some competitions allow you time to build your bot before the competition, but still all teams start out with exactly the same random bits and pieces from which to build their solutions.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
I think that's my favorite definition of the term. But it starts to put a negative spin on things because most would initially interpret "limitations" as limits placed to protect something. When I think "limits" in this connotation I am more thinking of the limits of what a system is capable of. Making a barcode reading pen on an Apple II for example. Expanding what's possible. Exceeding the limits of the original system's abilities.
Though definitions 1 and 6 are more in with my line of general thinking. 1 is good but is too specific, 6 is too general.
1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.... 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
Hackers that come to mind for me aren't these people that do digital break-ins. They don't even have to apply to computers whatsoever. Dictionary.com doesn't even have the correct original definition:
1. a person or thing that hacks. 2. Slang. a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill: weekend hackers on the golf course. 3. Computer Slang.
a. a computer enthusiast.
b. a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems.
First there were hackers. Then there was a new subset, called "computer hackers". Now the former are known as "hardware hackers" and the latter simply as "hackers". (and with only the negative connotations)
When *I* think of "hacker", I think of MacGyver. and Scotty. and Junkyard Showdown. And in the best modern tradition, Robot Wars. It's a real shame that I can't declare myself a "hacker" nowadays without people getting all the wrong ideas. In my book, a "hacker" is anyone that can do more with less than the average individual. I think I'd even have to call Red Green a good redneck hacker - anyone that can solve that many problems with Duct Tape has got to be a hacker.
I suspect the original definition evolved from "A person that hacks away at a problem using primitive tools not designed for the purpose, to create an acceptable and sometimes elegant solution."
BUT, thinking on it, several things come immediately to mind:
1. Apple won't fire the engineer. that's bad press. They WILL however remove him from the engineering team and drop him into a job he probably doesn't like, forever. his job security is absolute, but his engineering career at apple is zero. that's the penalty for this level of "oops".
2. the poor guy's engineering career outside apple is also severely damaged by gizmodo's irresponsible release of his name. "carelessly lost a secret prototype that immediately fell into the hands of the press" doesn't look good on a design engineer's resume'.
3. "finders-keepers" rarely applies in the legal world. Not in California in particular. If you find something of value that you can reasonably assume was lost, you're obligated to turn it in. You may receive a finder's reward, but there's no requirement. Since he sold it for 5 grand he basically has no legal ground to stand on. he obviously knew it was valuable and lost.
4. buying something that you can reasonably assume is valuable and was lost is also illegal. Now gizmodo will be on the hook as well.
5. Apple was already going after Gizmodo and will almost certainly win the phone back as well as settle for some damages. or it may go to court if apple wants high damages. (would not surprise me)
6. Apple may further press legally to expose the identity of the finder of the phone. Gizmodo is not likely to have a leg to stand on here unless they somehow conducted a totally anonymous meeting and acquisition. (unlikely) We should be hearing the name of the greedy SOB sometime soon.
7. Apple may further press for legal action on the finder.
8. The finder really made a bad decision. Consider if he had instead: called/emailed apple and told them he found the phone and would like to have them come pick it up in person, not making any demands at all. (since he's not legally entitled to do so) Take lots of pictures of it and memorize it thoroughly. When they come to pick it up, they WILL be carrying an NDA for him to sign. Hand over the phone, and begin negotiations for the pictures and the NDA. All legal. He could have made a good deal more that way. Apple would have easily paid him 20 grand for the pictures and NDA signature. Instead, he's probably going to end up having to return the 5 grand for selling stolen property, ("theft by finding" I think is the legal term in CA?) and then face additional legal action.
Too bad all around, most everyone loses. Except maybe Gizmodo, which may come out ahead after all of this, depending on what sort of settlement Apple seeks.
Yep here it is, orbital calculator. Punch in your zip code and tell it to show you pass 222 of the shuttle. It will give a set of times. (in eastern standard time)
My set peaks at 10 deg above the horizon, so ya, probably not going to happen. Maybe if I went out in the country, but it'd be so far away, that's a shame. I'd like to say "maybe next time", but that's not likely...:(
I think I'd almost consider it a perk of being an American to see the shuttle cruising in overhead for a landing. "THIS is an example of your tax dollars doing rad things". It's a sight everyone should get to have. I've never seen the shuttle, but I live in Iowa, (central unfortunately, not southwest) so I don't think I am going to get to see it. But I'm going to depart for some research now to see if I have a shot.
Contrary to what you might think, she could leave if she wanted to.
VERY common misconception where domestic and foreign worker violence is involved. No, a lot of the time these people don't believe they have a choice. By the time things have progressed to this point, most of them have it pretty thoroughly engrained in their minds that offering any form of resistance, to say nothing of reporting the problem, will only lead to intensified beatings, to the point of severe injury or death. These people are controlled by fear. Fear of worse beatings. Fear of death.
A lot of the people that find themselves in possession of such a liability think they just need to leave someone else holding the bag, and try to sell it to a sucker as fast as possible, covering up the trail if they can. In reality, everyone that's been in possession of it shares a portion of the liability.
You know it's bad when (as my friend found out) the inspector you bring to the place to check it over before signing off suddenly realizes where he is, and starts backing his way to the door, checking his shoes, and saying "We shouldn't even be here...."
"They've created a hazardous waste site in the neighborhood," Wells said.
Actually, the neighborhood was created in the hazardous waste site.
further from TFA: the leftover munitions and chemicals were buried behind the school in what was then rural farmland
The article makes it sound like the chems found their way there after the housing development. How much of this is the army's fault... and how much of it is the housing developers fault? Surely they did a little research on the history of the land before they tried to start a housing development there? Probably not, or maybe that's why they got the land so cheap? I know someone personally that had a very close call with some land he almost bought, (got stuck with) that he found out just in time used to be where line transformers were rebuilt. (can you say "ground and buildings saturated with PCBs?) When you buy something like that, it doesn't become exclusively your problem, but you now share a portion of the responsibility for its cleanup once it's deemed necessary.
Basically, if there's a toxic problem and you own it and you don't clean it up or get it cleaned up, you're on the hook for it even years down the road after it's changed hands several times. Of course, the more hands its passed through before someone forces the cleanup, the more diluted your share of the blame becomes. Unfortunately, for this reason, it's on their best interest to NOT clean it up, and to do everything they can to hide the problem, for as long as possible.
Someone's probably doing some research right now trying to figure out how well this chemical disposal was documented, who if anyone was negligent for not factoring it in or disclosing it, and who all is now on the list of people that will be footing the cleanup bill.
the problem I see with this though is it's not like the domain was stolen. He allowed it to lapse while having email addresses on that domain still recognized by clients. They legally registered it, and are now making life hard for him. He screwed up, and can't go running to the authorities for that alone. Now clearly they're being fraudulent WITH the domain, but they obtained it legally, so that makes it a lot harder to legally take away.
I thought there were at least a couple groups scanning the skies looking for the next armageddon-variety meteor headed our way? Wouldn't we expect to have seen a big thing like this coming? Granted, probably not enough to be a biosphere-killer, but still would make a mess of a city if it hit, or of possibly several if it hit water and did the tsunami thing.
Slashdot Mirror
99%+ of scareware is from the same exact kit, and installs the same core exe program, (AV.EXE) in one of three fixed locations. (as super-hidden) This article itself is scareware. The av companies can detect every one of these every time they pop up, there's no "trying to keep up" with this. That's what happens when malware goes commercial as this has. Anyone happen to know offhand who's the source of this malware kit? (url?) I'd be curious to know how much such a kit sells for. Must be cheap if there's 1400 new customers a day.
Give us the meaningful number of unique, new scareware products a day. Or a week or a month. Betting somewhere under 10/month. And if they can't keep up with that, waaaaaah.
The reality is that 30 GB is enough for a HD movie, and we're never going to see these super-discs they keep bragging about. A 51GB HDDVD standard had been approved BT
Transformers bluray, over 40gb. (48?) Was a major PITA to transcode for my AppleTV because of the size x movie length x bitrate made it impossible to encode to a single file below 4gb (appleTV max) at higher than 420p. (also 4mbps max bitrate for appletv) They had to run the bitrate that high on the bluray though because they knew people were going to be slow-mo'ing those transformation sequences and wanted to keep things as sharp as possible.
BUT, iirc, the movie was on the disc twice in different formats, with extra features. The two main feature tracks were over 20gb each. (I think. It's been awhile)
So ya it's amazing how fast 640k is no longer enough. ;)
what better way to fund state governments than predating upon the weaknesses of your citizens.
and how does this differ than the state run lotteries or state licensed bars? those are proving to be a tremendous source of state income, and because they're out in the open, subject to close public and legal scrutiny, their ratio of problems-solved to problems-created is very positive.
Too many people seem to think that 100% of gambling is bad. It's like alcohol. Too much of anything is bad. In the end, gambling is going to go the way of prohibition, for exactly the same reasons.
At least keep the money in your state/country. Use some of it to help the people that have a problem with it, and use the rest of it to benefit everyone. Right now, anyone that WANTS to gamble online can, and 100% of that money gets on a plane and leaves the country. Legalizing it isn't going to make it any easier for those with gambling problems to gamble. But it IS going to pipe some of that money into local help for those people, AND keep the rest of the money in the neighborhood.
actually it appears that he [i]made[/i] the post to craigslist, and then made the [i]complaint[/i] also. I find it somewhat entertaining that he didn't get in trouble for appearing to try to sell his children, but instead for reporting to the authorities about someone (himself) trying to do it. (known prank) Apparently making a false report to the police is a bigger deal than trying to sell your kids?
That's a little bit like how MMORPGs work now, though more by necessity than by design.
It's still very possible to design a game where some key components sit server-side and require an internet connection to run. Things that don't require anywhere near the bandwidth of video. I'm surprised we haven't ran into any of that yet.
For example, have the mob's AI done remotely. It would require little more bandwidth than is required now for any online multiplayer FPS game, and if you did get it to work without a network connection, the mobs would just sit there and that would be no fun.
It would also give the game developers the option to "mix things up" from time to time - a boss that you had an easy strategy to beat suddenly "won't fall for that hide-behind-the-pillar trick anymore". More value for your money that way, greatly increases a game's replayability.
Most coders perform best when they are "in the zone", free of distractions, free to concentrate on what they are doing. Focus is important. Coders don't need all day to collaborate, distractions throughout the day are highly destructive to productivity. There NEEDS to be collaboration, but not while you're trying to code. That's what morning meetings are for. Get your communications out of the way, discuss what the goal for the day/week/month is and what's the progress, and then split up and get it done.
If people have an easy opportunity to knock my out of my Zone every 10 minutes to ask a question or bounce an idea off my, I won't get anything done. And what I DO get done will be lower quality. When someone DOES do that to me, I drop what I am doing, completely. I give them whatever interaction they want, and make it crystal clear to them that they have COMPLETELY stopped my work while I interact with them. Trying to multitask a discussion requiring any amount of thinking breeds bugs faster than a bowl of Alpo on a cockroach farm. After they're done, I take a deep breath, try to remember where I was, and work my way back into my Zone and pray Susy doesn't wander back in 20 minutes with some followup questions. Most people quickly come to understand that the work I do is not compatible with multitasking and interruptions, and are more careful about when they interrupt my work. All of the managers I have had understand how this works, and will politely suggest to the coworker "couldn't this have waited until tomorrow morning?", when they'll find I'm MUCH more social.
Or maybe you're one of those rare few that can carry on a conversation and code flawlessly at the same time. Not me, not many of us. Face it, limited autism is conducive to good code. ;)
"obstruction of justice" is one of those "bad laws". It's a catch-all, that any cop with an agenda can twist to make whatever you happen to be doing, illegal. "Failure to obey an officer of the law" is another good one. With that particular gem, they basically can tell you to do practically anything (short of something unconstitutional) and if you don't do it, bam, failure to obey, cuff 'im Dano.
Laws like that were passed quite possibly in good faith, to give an officer the ability to stop somthing that clearly SHOULD be illegal but that there wasn't a law on the books at the time. It shifts the job of the officer from enforcing the law to creating and interpreting it. Senators create laws. Juries and judges interpret laws. Officers enforce laws. When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law. Either word it to give more benefit of the doubt, or DON'T make it in the first place.
They would have the sn of the computer and you can report stolen serial numbers to apple, but unless the new owner attempts to register it, apple won't know where it is. Simply using the ipad, or even activating service on it, does not require the sn of the computer.
Though seeing as you can't buy an ipad without getting a contract, it could prove tricky, if at least not somewhat suspicious if someone comes into AT&T store and asks to activate service on it. "Where did you BUY this?" would have to be a question they get asked.
They arrested Rachner for obstruction of justice for not identifying himself.
No, they arrested him for frustrating and pissing them off. They charged him with obstruction of justice as their means of retaliation in an attempt to legally justify his arrest.
Big difference.
What would be super awesome though would be a torrent
OR, posting all the huge videos in a torrent so we could get it faster.
and for those of you that have, I hear they're going to release it in braille too.
Scotty not so much
ok maybe LaForge moreso... "we can try to reroute a tacheon pulse through the main deflector to..." wait, maybe not. Anyway they were hackers in theory, but in a technobabble kind of way. We rarely got to see Scotty do any hacking, but we sort of took it for granted that there was some going on.
OK how about I redeem myself with Doc Brown?
hmmm have a look at this
Basically two competing teams have limited time to throw together something from junk or parts to compete against each other. Battles like this usually give you very little idea of what you're going to be required to make until you hit the field, so you have to be skilled at making anything, from anything. That's what hacking is all about. There are several examples of tournaments like this. Some competitions allow you time to build your bot before the competition, but still all teams start out with exactly the same random bits and pieces from which to build their solutions.
Mechatronics is another one.
I like that link.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
I think that's my favorite definition of the term. But it starts to put a negative spin on things because most would initially interpret "limitations" as limits placed to protect something. When I think "limits" in this connotation I am more thinking of the limits of what a system is capable of. Making a barcode reading pen on an Apple II for example. Expanding what's possible. Exceeding the limits of the original system's abilities.
Though definitions 1 and 6 are more in with my line of general thinking. 1 is good but is too specific, 6 is too general.
1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular. ...
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
Hackers that come to mind for me aren't these people that do digital break-ins. They don't even have to apply to computers whatsoever. Dictionary.com doesn't even have the correct original definition:
1. a person or thing that hacks.
2. Slang. a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill: weekend hackers on the golf course.
3. Computer Slang.
a. a computer enthusiast.
b. a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems.
First there were hackers. Then there was a new subset, called "computer hackers". Now the former are known as "hardware hackers" and the latter simply as "hackers". (and with only the negative connotations)
When *I* think of "hacker", I think of MacGyver. and Scotty. and Junkyard Showdown. And in the best modern tradition, Robot Wars. It's a real shame that I can't declare myself a "hacker" nowadays without people getting all the wrong ideas. In my book, a "hacker" is anyone that can do more with less than the average individual. I think I'd even have to call Red Green a good redneck hacker - anyone that can solve that many problems with Duct Tape has got to be a hacker.
I suspect the original definition evolved from "A person that hacks away at a problem using primitive tools not designed for the purpose, to create an acceptable and sometimes elegant solution."
so you're saying the should use FedEx instead?
I noticed that too. Owell.
BUT, thinking on it, several things come immediately to mind:
1. Apple won't fire the engineer. that's bad press. They WILL however remove him from the engineering team and drop him into a job he probably doesn't like, forever. his job security is absolute, but his engineering career at apple is zero. that's the penalty for this level of "oops".
2. the poor guy's engineering career outside apple is also severely damaged by gizmodo's irresponsible release of his name. "carelessly lost a secret prototype that immediately fell into the hands of the press" doesn't look good on a design engineer's resume'.
3. "finders-keepers" rarely applies in the legal world. Not in California in particular. If you find something of value that you can reasonably assume was lost, you're obligated to turn it in. You may receive a finder's reward, but there's no requirement. Since he sold it for 5 grand he basically has no legal ground to stand on. he obviously knew it was valuable and lost.
4. buying something that you can reasonably assume is valuable and was lost is also illegal. Now gizmodo will be on the hook as well.
5. Apple was already going after Gizmodo and will almost certainly win the phone back as well as settle for some damages. or it may go to court if apple wants high damages. (would not surprise me)
6. Apple may further press legally to expose the identity of the finder of the phone. Gizmodo is not likely to have a leg to stand on here unless they somehow conducted a totally anonymous meeting and acquisition. (unlikely) We should be hearing the name of the greedy SOB sometime soon.
7. Apple may further press for legal action on the finder.
8. The finder really made a bad decision. Consider if he had instead: called/emailed apple and told them he found the phone and would like to have them come pick it up in person, not making any demands at all. (since he's not legally entitled to do so) Take lots of pictures of it and memorize it thoroughly. When they come to pick it up, they WILL be carrying an NDA for him to sign. Hand over the phone, and begin negotiations for the pictures and the NDA. All legal. He could have made a good deal more that way. Apple would have easily paid him 20 grand for the pictures and NDA signature. Instead, he's probably going to end up having to return the 5 grand for selling stolen property, ("theft by finding" I think is the legal term in CA?) and then face additional legal action.
Too bad all around, most everyone loses. Except maybe Gizmodo, which may come out ahead after all of this, depending on what sort of settlement Apple seeks.
Yep here it is, orbital calculator. Punch in your zip code and tell it to show you pass 222 of the shuttle. It will give a set of times. (in eastern standard time)
My set peaks at 10 deg above the horizon, so ya, probably not going to happen. Maybe if I went out in the country, but it'd be so far away, that's a shame. I'd like to say "maybe next time", but that's not likely... :(
I think I'd almost consider it a perk of being an American to see the shuttle cruising in overhead for a landing. "THIS is an example of your tax dollars doing rad things". It's a sight everyone should get to have. I've never seen the shuttle, but I live in Iowa, (central unfortunately, not southwest) so I don't think I am going to get to see it. But I'm going to depart for some research now to see if I have a shot.
Contrary to what you might think, she could leave if she wanted to.
VERY common misconception where domestic and foreign worker violence is involved. No, a lot of the time these people don't believe they have a choice. By the time things have progressed to this point, most of them have it pretty thoroughly engrained in their minds that offering any form of resistance, to say nothing of reporting the problem, will only lead to intensified beatings, to the point of severe injury or death. These people are controlled by fear. Fear of worse beatings. Fear of death.
I can just imagine how much money one saves by moving only headstones and not the bodies underground.
A lot of the people that find themselves in possession of such a liability think they just need to leave someone else holding the bag, and try to sell it to a sucker as fast as possible, covering up the trail if they can. In reality, everyone that's been in possession of it shares a portion of the liability.
You know it's bad when (as my friend found out) the inspector you bring to the place to check it over before signing off suddenly realizes where he is, and starts backing his way to the door, checking his shoes, and saying "We shouldn't even be here...."
"They've created a hazardous waste site in the neighborhood," Wells said.
Actually, the neighborhood was created in the hazardous waste site.
further from TFA: the leftover munitions and chemicals were buried behind the school in what was then rural farmland
The article makes it sound like the chems found their way there after the housing development. How much of this is the army's fault... and how much of it is the housing developers fault? Surely they did a little research on the history of the land before they tried to start a housing development there? Probably not, or maybe that's why they got the land so cheap? I know someone personally that had a very close call with some land he almost bought, (got stuck with) that he found out just in time used to be where line transformers were rebuilt. (can you say "ground and buildings saturated with PCBs?) When you buy something like that, it doesn't become exclusively your problem, but you now share a portion of the responsibility for its cleanup once it's deemed necessary.
Basically, if there's a toxic problem and you own it and you don't clean it up or get it cleaned up, you're on the hook for it even years down the road after it's changed hands several times. Of course, the more hands its passed through before someone forces the cleanup, the more diluted your share of the blame becomes. Unfortunately, for this reason, it's on their best interest to NOT clean it up, and to do everything they can to hide the problem, for as long as possible.
Someone's probably doing some research right now trying to figure out how well this chemical disposal was documented, who if anyone was negligent for not factoring it in or disclosing it, and who all is now on the list of people that will be footing the cleanup bill.
the problem I see with this though is it's not like the domain was stolen. He allowed it to lapse while having email addresses on that domain still recognized by clients. They legally registered it, and are now making life hard for him. He screwed up, and can't go running to the authorities for that alone. Now clearly they're being fraudulent WITH the domain, but they obtained it legally, so that makes it a lot harder to legally take away.
I thought there were at least a couple groups scanning the skies looking for the next armageddon-variety meteor headed our way? Wouldn't we expect to have seen a big thing like this coming? Granted, probably not enough to be a biosphere-killer, but still would make a mess of a city if it hit, or of possibly several if it hit water and did the tsunami thing.