He's just under/mis-informed about his choice of technologies.
He's afraid that using anonymous web technologies leads to bad things -- and to be fair, users of Tor are essentially divided into the paranoid, the pedos, and the paranoid pedos. Blame the early adopters for quickly figuring out that an anonymous web is a great place to sell drugs, guns and children......and host Linux ISOs or something.
I can't tell you what "most" anonymous web-surfers do. I can only tell you the part of it that makes the news.
The Cree 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) A19 Dimmable LED Light Bulb is $10 at Home Depot, quantity 1, without any sort of bulk, deal, or coupon shopping.
You've described a zany hypothetical situation where a "good guy" with a gun "helps" by shooting into a crowd.
The person responding to you replied by telling you that 98% of shoots by CCW holders are "righteous" where only 86% of police shoots are. The other 14%, presumably, are police shooting people holding cell phones and other fuckups.
I have no idea if his stat is true, but if so, by an overwhelming majority a CCW holder (a guy who just wants to carry his gun) is less likely to shoot into a crowd than a cop by a factor of 7:1.
The idiot in this story is part of the 2%, clearly -- although he's likely a minority among that 2% as well.
I just said this above, but I'll repeat it. "You're always in the right until you're in the wrong." That's the pro-gun-agenda (whomever they are) people's logic behind an armed population. Anyone carrying a gun is a defender of liberty, ready to stop someone from attacking a guy in a theater. Anyone shooting a guy in a theater is a lunatic, hopefully to be stopped by a "good guy."
Don't get me wrong. I'm a gun owner, and on rare occasion a gun carrying member of (I think) the "good guys." I generally don't see a need to carry my gun for full-time self defense. I just have it on me when I'm going to and from the range, or out into the wilderness for the weekend, plus a smattering of other times when it makes sense to have it.
Of course, I'm in Arizona, where they practically issue guns to people with proof of citizenship. YMMV.
Correct. Nobody, not even fire trucks, has the right of way. You, however, as a "normal" driver must yield the right of way to fire trucks. It's a subtle difference but an important one. [This is true for pedestrians in crosswalks. They don't have the right of way either. You must, however, yield the right of way to them.]
Moral of the story? You're always in the right until you're in the wrong.
There's nothing stopping it now other than mass-market interest, but as soon as I can walk into Costco or Sams Club and buy a box the size of a dorm room refrigerator, put in an object (or pick one from the internet), then an hour later it spits out a copy, we'll have reached the tipping point on these.
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
Aside: I learned this a long time ago about police cars and fire trucks. They can only proceed through intersections with lights and sirens if it's clear to do so. If they hit something, it obviously wasn't clear to do so. The other guy may have some liability, but that won't necessarily excuse the fire truck driver.
Google voice sticks me with two entry points, my GV number and my "real" number. Twice the opportunity to get spammed -- although, yes, the Google entry point gets very little.
It's certainly not likely that it'll get seized, but of course there's a chance -- it happens.
I did your Google search, and the first article I read referenced The New Yorker as its source. Reading it, I got:
The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station.
I'm not a fan of broad asset seizures for drug busts, but it wasn't carrying cash that got these two in trouble. It was putting cash in the same container as their pot-smoking equipment. The officers allege the smell of drugs, claim the couple was smoking, but didn't find any pot in the bust.
The moral of the story is that police are certainly overzealous in the use of forfeiture items to line their pockets and supplement their budgets, but they're not just out seizing cash from people, and carrying cash in and of itself isn't "likely" to get it seized.
...with Apple, apparently, it's not the $4 a unit that's the biggest deal, it's tax "loopholes" of having those monies all happen in other countries. The $4 extra a unit is only.6B, a paltry $600M.
Delays may be on the part of the defense as well, as often the longer you wait, the more the other side shows its hand.
Even though he might be sitting in custody, since that time will likely count against any sentence he actually receives, it may be a strategy employed by either side.
As a young man, I was one of two people who ended up in court for a crime. We chose to go to battle separately. We did everything we could go make sure we went second.
Because your job running a corporation nowadays is solely to provide a return to your investors soon, and little else, with little regard for anyone's long-term best interests.
I hate being all, Coprorations are evil, maaaaaaaaaan, but well...
I suppose that depends on the initial TOS, and what, lacking verbiage to explicitly define it, a reasonable expectation of that data usage is.
*shrug*
My point was simply that the person complaining about Google has had ample opportunity to change his use of their service and doesn't. He prefers to bitch about it every time there's a Google story, while apparently still remaining a user of their services. [Or, depending on your perspective, a product of their services to be sold to Google's customer - the advertisers.]
I think you and I mostly agree on Google's TOS changes and service consolidations. Their motives are fairly transparent.
...then they better start patting down everyone entering or exiting casinos.
As a degenerate gambler and poker player (two different things), I've regularly got plenty of cash on me, and it's never, ever, been a problem. Thousands of people show up to the WSOP every year and pay for buy-ins in cash. Every poker forum gets the same question asked to it ever year before the WSOP, "How do I bring 10-20k in cash with me to the WSOP?"...and the same answer gets given every year. If you don't want to just wire your entry fee to the tournament cage (or your bankroll to a casino host), or you plan on just playing cash games, call your bank, tell them you're going to withdraw a bunch of cash - so they can have a bunch on hand - then take it with you to the event. If someone says, "Hey's what's all this cash," you say, "I'm a poker player." Works for thousands of us every time.
Of course, I don't wander crack alleys with it, so, YMMV.
It's much, much more likely that hackers penetrated the network by other means, and then, once inside the network, compromised the POS systems -- which could then report back to the intermediary system, which could report out (or be repeatedly accessed from outside).
It's unlikely that the POS systems themselves reached out to the internet. That would have been noticed far, far too easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems a reasonable thing to do if you, say, go a page with a song or video on it.
Indeed. I get to uninstall a plugin tonight, and get to enjoy my memory footprint dropping accordingly.
He's just under/mis-informed about his choice of technologies.
He's afraid that using anonymous web technologies leads to bad things -- and to be fair, users of Tor are essentially divided into the paranoid, the pedos, and the paranoid pedos. Blame the early adopters for quickly figuring out that an anonymous web is a great place to sell drugs, guns and children... ...and host Linux ISOs or something.
I can't tell you what "most" anonymous web-surfers do. I can only tell you the part of it that makes the news.
Dogecoin (very Litecoin, much meme, so cash, wow).
I'm currently devoting nearly all of my hate to Doge. It might be the worst thing the internet has done in a long, long time.
Well, I think you're right - incandescent are good for low-usage situations.
When you die, however, you can give your LED to your heirs :)
$15?
The Cree 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) A19 Dimmable LED Light Bulb is $10 at Home Depot, quantity 1, without any sort of bulk, deal, or coupon shopping.
Have you considered taking your LED bulbs with you -- or are you gluing them into the socket or something?
I just installed $400 worth of LED spotlights into my kitchen/entry/living area, replacing all of the old pots with these:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/EcoSmart-6-in-12-5-Watt-65W-Soft-White-2700K-Mid-Range-LED-Retrofit-Downlight-4-Pack-ECO-FD6-625L-27K-E26/204754597?N=bm79Z4b8#
I put the old ones in a box. I'm taking the LED lights with me if I move.
There are few certainties in this world.
Heck, with 7% of humans who have ever lived alive today, we've only got a 93% mortality rate...
You've described a zany hypothetical situation where a "good guy" with a gun "helps" by shooting into a crowd.
The person responding to you replied by telling you that 98% of shoots by CCW holders are "righteous" where only 86% of police shoots are. The other 14%, presumably, are police shooting people holding cell phones and other fuckups.
I have no idea if his stat is true, but if so, by an overwhelming majority a CCW holder (a guy who just wants to carry his gun) is less likely to shoot into a crowd than a cop by a factor of 7:1.
The idiot in this story is part of the 2%, clearly -- although he's likely a minority among that 2% as well.
Yes and no.
I just said this above, but I'll repeat it. "You're always in the right until you're in the wrong." That's the pro-gun-agenda (whomever they are) people's logic behind an armed population. Anyone carrying a gun is a defender of liberty, ready to stop someone from attacking a guy in a theater. Anyone shooting a guy in a theater is a lunatic, hopefully to be stopped by a "good guy."
Don't get me wrong. I'm a gun owner, and on rare occasion a gun carrying member of (I think) the "good guys." I generally don't see a need to carry my gun for full-time self defense. I just have it on me when I'm going to and from the range, or out into the wilderness for the weekend, plus a smattering of other times when it makes sense to have it.
Of course, I'm in Arizona, where they practically issue guns to people with proof of citizenship. YMMV.
Correct. Nobody, not even fire trucks, has the right of way. You, however, as a "normal" driver must yield the right of way to fire trucks. It's a subtle difference but an important one. [This is true for pedestrians in crosswalks. They don't have the right of way either. You must, however, yield the right of way to them.]
Moral of the story? You're always in the right until you're in the wrong.
There's nothing stopping it now other than mass-market interest, but as soon as I can walk into Costco or Sams Club and buy a box the size of a dorm room refrigerator, put in an object (or pick one from the internet), then an hour later it spits out a copy, we'll have reached the tipping point on these.
If it makes you feel any better, I enjoyed your PEMDAS joke :)
Pretty sure a Pound is worth about $1.64.
*shrug*
60k may or may not be good, depending on the bonus structure.
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
Aside: I learned this a long time ago about police cars and fire trucks. They can only proceed through intersections with lights and sirens if it's clear to do so. If they hit something, it obviously wasn't clear to do so. The other guy may have some liability, but that won't necessarily excuse the fire truck driver.
Google voice sticks me with two entry points, my GV number and my "real" number. Twice the opportunity to get spammed -- although, yes, the Google entry point gets very little.
...but it only works for a spherical cow in a vacuum, uniformly radiating milk in all directions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "likely a chance."
It's certainly not likely that it'll get seized, but of course there's a chance -- it happens.
I did your Google search, and the first article I read referenced The New Yorker as its source. Reading it, I got:
I'm not a fan of broad asset seizures for drug busts, but it wasn't carrying cash that got these two in trouble. It was putting cash in the same container as their pot-smoking equipment. The officers allege the smell of drugs, claim the couple was smoking, but didn't find any pot in the bust.
The moral of the story is that police are certainly overzealous in the use of forfeiture items to line their pockets and supplement their budgets, but they're not just out seizing cash from people, and carrying cash in and of itself isn't "likely" to get it seized.
They do this China vs US breakdown every time a new iPhone teardown happens.
It costs Google about $4 more a unit to make Motorola phones here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/25/if-apple-brought-iphone-manufacturing-to-the-us-it-would-cost-them-4-2-billion/
Delays may be on the part of the defense as well, as often the longer you wait, the more the other side shows its hand.
Even though he might be sitting in custody, since that time will likely count against any sentence he actually receives, it may be a strategy employed by either side.
As a young man, I was one of two people who ended up in court for a crime. We chose to go to battle separately. We did everything we could go make sure we went second.
Because your job running a corporation nowadays is solely to provide a return to your investors soon, and little else, with little regard for anyone's long-term best interests.
I hate being all, Coprorations are evil, maaaaaaaaaan, but well...
I suppose that depends on the initial TOS, and what, lacking verbiage to explicitly define it, a reasonable expectation of that data usage is.
*shrug*
My point was simply that the person complaining about Google has had ample opportunity to change his use of their service and doesn't. He prefers to bitch about it every time there's a Google story, while apparently still remaining a user of their services. [Or, depending on your perspective, a product of their services to be sold to Google's customer - the advertisers.]
I think you and I mostly agree on Google's TOS changes and service consolidations. Their motives are fairly transparent.
...then they better start patting down everyone entering or exiting casinos.
As a degenerate gambler and poker player (two different things), I've regularly got plenty of cash on me, and it's never, ever, been a problem. Thousands of people show up to the WSOP every year and pay for buy-ins in cash. Every poker forum gets the same question asked to it ever year before the WSOP, "How do I bring 10-20k in cash with me to the WSOP?" ...and the same answer gets given every year. If you don't want to just wire your entry fee to the tournament cage (or your bankroll to a casino host), or you plan on just playing cash games, call your bank, tell them you're going to withdraw a bunch of cash - so they can have a bunch on hand - then take it with you to the event. If someone says, "Hey's what's all this cash," you say, "I'm a poker player." Works for thousands of us every time.
Of course, I don't wander crack alleys with it, so, YMMV.
It's much, much more likely that hackers penetrated the network by other means, and then, once inside the network, compromised the POS systems -- which could then report back to the intermediary system, which could report out (or be repeatedly accessed from outside).
It's unlikely that the POS systems themselves reached out to the internet. That would have been noticed far, far too easily.