I really hope this deal doesn't go through. T-Mobile is a great carrier. Not enough towers, but their plans are easy going and their customer service is top notch.
I've been with T for many years, and their service has gone up and down over time. It was bad, then good, then bad, then good again. At one point, they wanted several hundred dollars because I DARED to turn my phone on while I was in Australia, and even after I turned it off every incoming call was forwarded from the US to Oz (at $1.49/minute) and then forwarded back to my voicemail in the US (at $1.99/minute).
Where is it now? Well, let's just say that I cannot get them to stop spamming me with SMS messages. They've started sending me an SMS every time a payment arrives. If I want to know when my payment arrives, I'll use the web and My T-Mobile. If I need confirmation, I'll call my bank to see if the check cleared. I don't need and don't want crap SMS wasting my time. They have no way of stopping this nonsense.
When I called them to find out about getting data during a trip to Germany (the home of the original T-Mobile) without being raped, their only reasonable solution was 'buy a pre-paid SIM in-country'. That did work fine. So well that I'm now used to having 3G service to my phone.
Monday I was going to call and get domestic data service, and that morning they sent me another junk SMS. "You bill is almost due." They're now dunning me for a bill that isn't yet due, by sending me SMS messages that I've told them to stop sending me!
If the only other option wasn't AT&T, I'd probably have already switched.
First, cellulose is a sugar. It is a long chain polymer of simple sugars. This is why it has the "ose" suffix, just like sucrose and glucose. You don't have to convert cellulose into sugar.
Second, newspaper is already a fuel. It burns great. They even sell "portable grills" that are nothing more than big tin cans with some holes, into which you stuff some newspaper that you light afire and cook your hamburgers on top of.
She did not expect the authorities and 3rd party people she didn't authorize to see them.
Of course you people have no grasp of reality,
Several years ago, many people started using these new-fangled things called "cell phones". For reasons I will never understand, people who were talking into a small box with an antenna on the top of it didn't grasp the concept of "radio", and that if their little box with an antenna on the top of it could receive and reproduce sounds from a distance there might be other little boxes that could receive and reproduce the same sounds. They did not expect anyone but the person whose phone number they had dialled into the little box to actually hear what they were saying.
This was back in the days when people still had other little boxes with antennas on the top that would reproduce sounds (and marvel of marvels, even pictures!) from a distance. It's not like "radio" should be a foreign concept to anyone. And yet, to these people, it was.
What was the solution to the problem of people thinking that nobody else could hear them talking on a radio? Was it to ENCRYPT the radio signal so nobody could understand what was being said? Oh, no. The only solution was to make listening to their signals illegal, and to make it illegal for other radios to be able to receive those signals.
So today, when it is almost trivial to build wideband receivers to add functionality to radios, we have laws that force manufacturers to cut large sections out of the available coverage, even after the functions of those frequencies are changing.
What is the moral of that story? Stupid people have stupid expectations, and the stupid laws that result from bending reality to their stupid expectations are, well, stupid. Now, I will admit that giving these stupid people the legal expectation that their secret conversations were secret did improve the quality of listening that the rest of us pragmatists who already owned radios heard. When people think they cannot be overheard, they will say the darndest things.
Because so far all you've said is that the government is ignoring a prohibition against unreasonable searches, and that SCOTUS has decided in a different situation that an X-ray scan needed to meet a certain burden before it was reasonable. You've now started to argue about whether it is reasonable, which is the point I was making. You can't just say "you're ignoring a rule" when the rule has clear exceptions. You need to show that the exceptions don't apply -- an now you are.
And that's the only point I was trying to make, along with not putting the blame on TSA for something they didn't do. Whether it is unreasonable or not is a different argument.
Point taken. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Ek vs. US that an X-Ray scan requires the same burden of proof as a strip search.
Ok. That sets the burden of proof. It doesn't yet prove that the scanning is an unreasonable search. You've just moved the argument from "is this unreasonable" to "has it met THIS level of reaonableness?" You still cannot claim that the prohibition is being ignored because you haven't yet shown that THIS kind of search fails to meet the same standard as another type of search.
In other words, the standards for boarding the flight from Amsterdam or the flight from Paris were exactly the same as the standards for boarding a flight in the U.S. And those standards were insufficient to either provide a deterrent or to prevent would-be terrorists from boarding the two airplanes.
Ummm, citation required?
The failure of the people performing the searches to meet the standards does not prove that the standards are insufficient. That is like saying that an EPA standard for 1 ppm of some contaminant in a public water supply was insufficient if the people running the water supply failed to achieve the 1 ppm level. Whether the 1 ppm level is safe or not is completely unconnected with the inability or ability of those who are required to meet it to do so.
The two bombers referred to above did not slip by TSA, because TSA was not involved in their screening. They may (or may not) have set the standards, but the failure of the French National Police to notice that the shoe bomber had a bomb in his shoe is a failure of the French National Police, not the TSA. You might argue that TSA WOULD HAVE missed them, based on existing TSA standards, but that's speculation and not fact.
Why waste time blaming TSA for things they didn't do when there is so much that you can blame them for actually doing? It's like blaming the 3 year old child for forgetting to feed the goldfish when he's just pulled the hand-crafted heirloom cookie jar off the shelf and it smashed through your 60" wide-screen television. You'll just confuse the child and make yourself look like a foolish parent.
You could also blame the TSA for failing to prevent the flight attendant who popped the cabin door and jumped out with a six pack, but that would also be something they weren't responsible for stopping, and you'd be just as wrong as when you blame them for Reid or the other guy.
However, I would argue that, before the government has the right to ignore the prohibition upon unreasonable search in the 4th Amendment
Your argument fails upon its face. The government is not ignoring any prohibition. They would be claiming that the search via body scanner is not an unreasonable one, and thus the prohibition does not apply.
That is significantly different than ignoring the prohibition. You need to argue that the search is unreasonable, not that they are ignoring you when you claim it is unreasonable.
It's like when you come to an intersection with a yield sign. If you drive through without stopping, would you say that you ignored the yield sign, or did you comply with it fully by being ready to yield if required? Or, for the more esoteric reference, consider when JJ from the network told Isaac Jaffe that the network suggestions for improving his show had been ignored, and Isaac quite properly told him that the suggestions had been considered and dismissed, and asked if JJ thought that his judgement should replace that of Isaac.*
Furthermore, since there have been at least two would-be terrorists since TSA took over airport security (the "underwear bomber" and the "shoe bomber"), both of whom slipped past TSA...
The underwear bomber boarded his US-bound flight in Amsterdam. The shoe bomber boarded his flight in Paris, France, after being detained by French National Police. TSA was involved with neither one.
In light of the evidence available, I am skeptical of any claims that TSA actually provides any kind of deterrent...
I cannot argue that TSA does a wonderful job, but please use valid evidence (there certainly is enough of it) when pointing out how little they actually accomplish. The two biggies you listed aren't evidence against the TSA; in fact, one could argue that they chose to board and demolish flights originating outside the US just to avoid the chance of being caught by TSA. That would make TSA something of a deterrent. Not that it is true, but the argument could be made.
* "Sports Night". The same episode, I think, with the monolog about "I can make tubes..." referring to Philo Farnsworth. And the marvelous "I will devote the rest of my life to making the rest of yours miserable; if you think I'm just mouthing at you, ask anyone" put down from Sam to JJ as he tells them to leave. And the tag "I have two goals when I get up each morning. One is to not take a drink. The other is to raise the ratings of this show to the point that what almost happened here today doesn't. Trust me. I won't make fools out of you". Sigh. Quo vadimus?
I suggest the same to you. Your list is rather left-leaning. You might have noted that CNN spent a great deal of time on the hurricane. Considering there was a massive overthrow of a petty dictator going on at the same time that seemed to merit endless coverage of every bullet fired, and involved (gasp) the detention of news media (gasp) against (gasp) their will (gasp!) that's saying a lot.
There are millions of people every day dependent upon manufactured medications to maintain mental function, and millions more who are taking medication because someone else thinks they need mental function adjustement. Those medications are, for the most part, administered orally.
What, does it surprise anyone that a bacterium producing a mind altering compound in the gut would have that compound absorbed and transported via the bloodstream, when we depend on exactly that transport method for manufactured drugs?
The truth is the reason for the jokes. We all know what he said, just some people want to deny it.
"In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.""
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm. If you want to argue that he "promoted" the internet, fine, but to claim that "create" means simply "promote", you're wrong. Try telling the actual creators of JIF peanut butter that you created JIF peanut butter because you promote the brand and they'll laugh you into next week.
You want to laugh at Quayle because he used a valid but older spelling for "potatoe", then accept the hoots and howls when Gore talks about creating things.
Oh come on. That's bullshit. You know as well as I that the intended use standard applies.
Whatever "standard use" policy you think applies does not change the fact that those companies knowingly make and knowingly distribute devices that facilitate illegal activities. That "standard use" policy may make them eventually not liable for producing those devices, but produce them to do. And you might note that "standard use" did not protect Napster.
Conversely, meat is meant to be eaten,
In your rush to call me a liar, did you even bother to note that I clearly differentiated between actions that are themselves a danger to others and actions that are indirectly a danger? Like producing tainted meat is a direct danger, while producing a copy machine, or any other "device" with "security issues", is not.
I am an extremely confident individual who has almost no feeling of need to justify myself to others. I could care less about what people that I don't care about think of me...
Hmmm. A confident individual who has no clue how foolish he looks to others, or do you really mean you could care less about what others think about you? If the latter, I apologize.
There's a big difference between selling jelly at the farmers market and knowingly releasing devices that facilitate identity theft,
Xerox, Canon, Ricoh, and several other companies knowingly manufacture devices that facilitate not only identity theft but copyright violation and child pornography. They're called "copy machines". Several companies knowingly manufacture devices that facilitate copyright violations, namely "DVD recorders".
Many many companies knowingly distribute devices that knowingly allow the violation of many different laws. I can buy radios from Kenwood, Motorola, Tait, EF Johnson, and a host of other companies that allow me trivially to jam police communications. Or aircraft/ATC communications. I can buy credit card readers that allow the theft of CC info. I can buy cars that allow me to speed, and even run people over.
or knowingly selling meat that was contaminated with feces when the guy working in the factory cut too deep.
There's a big difference between commiting an act that by itself causes damage to individuals, and providing a device that can be used in illegal or damaging ways.
Somebody sold that guy who "cut too deep" the knife he used to make that cut. Is the knife manufacturer liable for the misuse of the product because he knew that someone using the product to "cut too deep" at a meat packing plant would cause contamination of the meat product? Note the word "knowingly".
No, they'll stop making stuff because unlimited liability for 'any risk' is simply insane.
This. I wish I had mod points today.
Everything anyone does has risk. The only secure computer is one that is turned off. The only secure cell phone is one that has the battery removed. The only secure... well, you get the idea.
Absolute security is an impossible dream, an unreachable goal, and a continuous drain on money and time. At some point, we all have to weigh the cost/benfit ratios of what we are doing and get on with our lives. E.g., the value of getting to work greatly outweighs the risks involved in driving there, so I do it. The value of cleaning oneself outweighs the risks involved in taking a shower.
That's the equation that people seem to forget when talking about safety and hacking. There is a cost to safety and security, and sometimes the cost is more than the risks would cost. What would it cost to put a thermal/smoke detector in every toaster, connected to an internal fire extinguisher and cell phone that dials 911 in an emergency? Well, toasters sometimes start to burn, wouldn't the safety be worth it? That $20 toaster would now cost $200 and nobody would buy it. Or you could get the government to write a law saying you had to buy that kind of toaster, just like they have laws saying you must have smoke detectors in certainly residences. The former is economics at work; the latter a governmental distortion of those principles. And look out when one of those toaster safety features doesn't work, the company will be sued anyway.
You can't do encryption over HAM waves because it is supposed to be free and open to all that qualify, not a place for exclusivity. Also they want to be able to monitor to make sure people aren't using it for commercial purposes.
The reason is exclusively the latter. The former has nothing to do with it. As a repeater trustee (my callsign on the repeater) I can tell you not to use it and the FCC will back me up.
You actually can do encryption over ham radio. HSMM (high speed multi-media) is the ham version of 2.4G wireless. Encryption (WEP) is standard there. The rules prohibit encryption with the intent to hide the meaning. The HSMM folks publish the WEP key. They can't be intending to hide the meaning, therefore.
Second, Austria (I think it was. One of those "Aus..." countries, anyway.) has made it legal to encrypt domestic communications on frequencies above 50 MHz. Our USA ARRL cannot be arsed to push for the same rules for us.
I don't see much distinction between the union saying "Send lots of protest emails to X" and any given person asking a group to "Write your congress critter."
I do. "Send thousands of emails to these company executives to complain about their 'practices' and show them who is boss" is significantly different than "send an email to your congressman to voice your opinon on bill X". First, you are a constituent of your congressman; the people being told to send floods of email are not customers or employees of the company. One vs. thousands. "express your opinion" vs. "get back at".
The clear intent is to voice an opposing opinion to whatever X did,
No. You can express your opinion in one email. Sending thousands shows a clear intent to harass and cause damage.
Regarding most of the emails coming from the union servers, that could be the union maliciously attacking the company...
It is the union providing the resources to people who are attacking the company at the request of the union.
or it could be the union providing the use of their server for employees to protest anonymously.
It isn't employees who are attacking their own company, it is union members. That union doesn't represent anyone who works there.
Who's to say without further discovery?
If we knew nothing other that what you said, we wouldn't know enough. We know a lot more. We read the fine article. We linked one back from that to the legal article.
I do agree that spam mailing/calling their sales lines was a pretty shitty thing to do, though.
Pretty abusive, I'd say. Maybe even a violation of a law that covers computer abuse.
For you, maybe. Not everyone is so computer literate. Are the computer illiterate just supposed to put up with crapmail floods and do nothing? "Oh, ok, I don't know how to filter out ten thousand emails automatically, so I'll just sit here all day doing it manually and say nothing..."
route all email coming from *@whinyunion.org
The article said it came from the servers, not that it had a from address with the union domain name.
And, of course, once those ten thousand emails are in your inbox, the rules that would block them from getting there won't help. If they all come from different addresses, which any halfway intelligent crapmail flooder would do, you can't even filter the mailbox itself.
Why are so many people going so far into left field to defend this union's abuse?
Most modern public service radio systems have used frequency hopping for the last 10 or more years.
You are confusing trunking with frequency hopping or spread spectrum.
Trunking has a dedicated control channel that tells every radio that is part of a talkgroup (predefined group) to "go to channel X" so everyone in the talkgroup hears the same thing. Yes, modern scanners can monitor that control channel and do the same thing. This channel hopping is done on a per-transmission basis. I.e., once the talker is assigned a transmission channel, he and all the receivers stay there until he lets up on the push-to-talk button.
Frequency hopping is based on a pseudo-random number generator that tells each radio independently "go to channel X" after a very short period of time on channel Y. Each radio acts on its own, there is no control channel for anyone to monitor. The pseudo-random sequence is different for each "talkgroup". The channel hopping happens based on time, not transmission. A one-second transmission may occur on thirteen or fifty different frequencies sequentially.
The http://www.trisquare.us/products.htm TriSquare eXRS products are an example of commercial public spread spectrum radios. They demonstrate the biggest problem with that kind of system: you need to know the "code" for who you want to talk to before you can talk to them. This is ok in a managed environment where everyone is assigned codes by a central authority that publishes the list. It's not good for someone who is driving down the road and wants to call someone in the area he's never talked to before.
The advantage to trunking is that it is relatively simple. The BIG downside from a public safety standpoint is that it DEMANDS a control system to tell everyone what to do. If your control system happens to be, say, on top of the building that has just collapsed, you don't use trunking anymore. It is also relatively easy to jam, and to listen to.
Another downside is that users must be trained to wait for the "go ahead" beep from their radios before talking. There is a non-zero amount of time between the push of the button and actual transmission, because the talk request must first go to the control system, the control system must find and allocate an empty channel, and then it must transmit that information to all users, including the user who wants to talk. Once this is done, the user can start talking. Sometimes, if there are no open channels, it doesn't happen right away.
The advantage to SS is that it is harder to jam and harder for eavesdroppers. That makes it harder for interoperability.
Why shouldn't essentially everything be encrypted? That sounds like the sane default to me.
Because encryption requires management of encryption keys, which require security clearances for people who go around loading keys in radios and need to store keys locally.
It creates a terrible headache for backup radio systems and radio caches. I.e., the feds have several large storage areas for equipment that is needed in a disaster but wouldn't get much use otherwise. Someone would need to keep all those radios keyed up to date if everything was encrypted. Also, the radios need better security if they are encrypted. I manage a stack of about two dozen radios -- it would be a real PITA if I had to get a clearance so I could go rekey them once a week.
For CAP (Civil Air Patrol), they are getting/have gotten encryption capable radios. Out here, there is nobody with a clearance to manage the keys and keying of radios. It also shuts out personally owned equipment use, and mostly there isn't much that needs to be encrypted in the first place. CAP is getting this capability because they sometimes in some areas support fed agencies that want encrypted traffic. (The aircraft radios won't do it, anyway.)
And finally, encryption really puts the nail in the coffin of the idea of "interoperability"; that is, different agencies being able to communicate with each other when they need to. E.g., a major forest fire needs people from many agencies and different fire departments to fight it. They all show up with their own radio equipment. Interop means they all have standard channels (VTAC, VCALL, UTAC, etc) (look up "NIFOG" in google for the field guide that defines this all) and can talk to each other as soon as they arrive. Encryption means those who have encryptable radios have to get the right keys installed before they can do anything, and those without encryptionable radios don't talk to anyone.
And really, finally, encryption does NOTHING to prevent the issues of jamming and interference. The only people who haven't figured out that P25 digital systems have nowhere near the coverage as the old analog wideband systems are the radio manufacturers making billions selling the new P25 whiz-bang radios. We did a simple test out here (somewhere on the west coast) comparing P25 to analog narrowband, and P25 would fail where analog narrowband woked fine. One company (with the intials "M") came out here and proposed a trunked digital system to replace all the local public service systems, and they wound up with about thirty radio sites to provide the same coverage that we are getting with a dozen. Just doesn't work as well, and that's personal experience.
If the company has feeble and ridiculous capacities for its size, then maybe they need to beef up their systems before whining about other people breaking them.
The system is "feeble and ridiculous" only when hundreds of people are sending thousands of emails each over a few day period. And the same for voicemails.
Even if it took only five seconds each to determine an email was crapmail and delete it, if ten people send you a thousand emails each, thats ten thousand emails to wade through, and it would take 50,000 seconds to deal with. There are 86,400 seconds in a day. Eight hours has only 28,800 seconds. What you are trying to justify is something that will take each employee involved almost two days of work for each day of crapmail coming in. Doing NOTHING but dealing with the crapmail. Nothing else.
Not to mention that I don't know of any email client that would be graceful in dealing with ten thousand emails a day, and we are ignoring completely the issues of bandwidth and CPU processing for those incoming emails.
Now imagine that a hundred people are sending you just ten voicemails on your cellphone each day. A thousand voicemails. Keep in mind that this infrastructure is NOT provided by the company being attacked, but by the cellphone provider. Maybe fifteen seconds each to deal with them and the voice menus, that's fifteen thousand seconds a day just dealing with voicemail. More than four hours a day of non-stop cellphone use. It doesn't matter if you have an unlimited plan, there is a physical limit for what one person can do on a cellphone.
I don't think there is any way to justify this attack. What others have said is that the union doesn't represent anyone at that company, and it certainly isn't trying to organize anyone there by sending executives a ton of crap. They're trying to punish the company for their "practices", and they have zero standing to do that because they aren't involved in any way with that company.
I didn't expect there to be a day when I would be defending a union's actions.
I fully expected the knee-jerk "companies are bad, unions are good" reaction from many/. readers. No matter what the union does, it's against a company, so it must be good.
Just reading the summary should tell you that. The judge didn't decide that "too many emails is hacking". He decided that a lawsuit could proceed to make a finding of fact whether or not an action was a violation of the computer FRAUD and ABUSE act. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but all the judge said was "let's adjudicate the matter and see". And "hacking"? No, probably not "hacking", but I'd certainly call email and voicemail bombs to be abuse. If you are deliberately overloading a sales phone line with crap in order to punish a company, then you are probably also committing fraud. You aren't a customer, but you are pretending to be one when you call the sales number. Or send email to the sales address.
Doesn't change that their car was defective from the moment they sold it to you.
If you work for a company that forces you to BUY the company car just so you can drive it on company business, you are a moron.
If you are referring in any way to the analogy being used here, nothing was sold to you. You were allowed to use the company car for work and told that it had a problem with the engine and you were not supposed to drive it at high RPM. You then went out and deliberately drove it in first gear for everything you did. Yes, nothing changes the fact that the car had a problem, but it was running when you started using it and you deliberately violated the company instructions on how to use it. That makes you liable for it not working anymore.
And, until instructed to do so by the union leadership, nobody sent multiple mass emails to the company executives.
On the other hand, if I'm driving that car normally, and the car breaks down, even if I put it at high revs (reasonably high, not red-lining it) while accelerating during the normal course of my driving, and even if I was warned not to do that, they sure as hell can't blame me for breaking an already defective car.
Yes, they can. You broke the rules they put on the use of their vehicle, and did it knowing that your action was likely to cause further damage.
If you go to a library and borrow a book, and they tell you that the binding is fragile and the paper old so please do not splay the pages out to make photocopies, and you run over to the photocopy machine and in the process of making ten copies of the entire book you destroy it, guess who is going to pay for replacing that book? The answer isn't "the library".
If the same library has a display of an old document, and the signs say "no drinks or food in the display area", and you walk up to the document and spill your Slurpie all over it, who is responsible, you for ignoring the signs, or the library for not keeping the document locked up where you can't get to it?
Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not.
What is the intent of posting a website address on/.?
If you take the opportunity now to post the email address of the company, it would appear your intent is to harass the company, since there would be no clear purpose other than to do that. Yes, you'd be guilty of harassment.
If, however, the web address of some site is posted as part of a normal article, the intent would be to inform and discuss the subject, not harass the website owner. Of course, nothing would stop someone from actually submitting an article with the intent to harass, but one would hope that the editors would prevent it from appearing.
If they can't do the normal thing and empty their mailboxes in a reasonable manner,
What is "reasonable" and "normal" for you doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else. For my mother, for example, "normal" is to check email every few days. For you, you may be online every second of every day and reading and replying to email the moment it appears. "Normal" is somewhere inbetween. And again, if you know of a limitation and do something deliberate ("hey, everyone, send lots of email to the company to complain...") to exceed that known limitation, then what is "normal" is irrelevant. Notice that the example I just used isn't the person sending the email, it is the one who instigates the sending of "lots of email" that is.
The judge will have his ruling overturned.
Maybe. Maybe not. And it may be overturned again higher up the ladder. But it is certainly a valid argument that someone who causes damage to someone else by inciting others to perform an action that is known to cause that damage would be liable. For example, if you send a message to create a flashmob of 1000 people to go into a local McDonalds at lunch time, to the point that normal business cannot be conducted, I would expect a judge would accept a suit naming you as responsible in a civil action, even if you didn't bother showing up.
So the government plans to spend $1trn (or whatever) on the military this year. The government wants to save money, so they reduce staff numbers, mothball some equipment, switch to non-brand baked beans in the ration packs and whatnot, and thusly manage to spend $100 billion less than was projected. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Isn't that a "$100 billion saving from the military budget"? What's the other approach to saving money except for spending less?
There isn't one. The point you miss is that "spending less than you plan on" isn't actually "spending less". It is only spending less than you planned on.
I can make up all kinds of plans for what I want to spend. As the DOD, I can say I want to spend $1 trillion and then accept a "compromise" and spend only $900 billion, but I'd be wrong to call that a $100 billions savings. I made up the $1 trillion number. I didn't spend that much last year (the 2010 DOD budget request was for $533 billion), I simply added more than I really wanted to spend to next year's budget, knowing full well that I'd be able to "compromise" down to a number that was still spending more than last year, and more than I actually have in my pocket.
So, if I get my $900 billion, I've actually INCREASED spending by more than $300 billion, not saved $100 billion. In Washington terms, however, I saved us all $100 billion (which I will project across ten years to make it $1 trillion in savings), I "compromised" and that is good, and yes I get more money than I really need. Win win win win win.
This is standard practice in DC. Ask for more, accept a smaller increase, and then call it a cut when arguing for even more.
Here's how to solve the deficit and debt problem all in one day. Plan on buying an F22 Osprey from the manufacturer for $843 trillion dollars. When the plane is delivered, pay only $100 trillion dollars.
Oila! You've saved $743 trillion dollars. That's enough to pay off the debt, isn't it? If it isn't, simply repeat the process until you are debt-free and making a large profit. Now that the government is making a profit, nobody will need to pay anything in taxes. Win-Win-Win!
Now, all you need to do is find a company that will sell you an airplane for $100 trillion dollars. That might be hard to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I really hope this deal doesn't go through. T-Mobile is a great carrier. Not enough towers, but their plans are easy going and their customer service is top notch.
I've been with T for many years, and their service has gone up and down over time. It was bad, then good, then bad, then good again. At one point, they wanted several hundred dollars because I DARED to turn my phone on while I was in Australia, and even after I turned it off every incoming call was forwarded from the US to Oz (at $1.49/minute) and then forwarded back to my voicemail in the US (at $1.99/minute).
Where is it now? Well, let's just say that I cannot get them to stop spamming me with SMS messages. They've started sending me an SMS every time a payment arrives. If I want to know when my payment arrives, I'll use the web and My T-Mobile. If I need confirmation, I'll call my bank to see if the check cleared. I don't need and don't want crap SMS wasting my time. They have no way of stopping this nonsense.
When I called them to find out about getting data during a trip to Germany (the home of the original T-Mobile) without being raped, their only reasonable solution was 'buy a pre-paid SIM in-country'. That did work fine. So well that I'm now used to having 3G service to my phone. Monday I was going to call and get domestic data service, and that morning they sent me another junk SMS. "You bill is almost due." They're now dunning me for a bill that isn't yet due, by sending me SMS messages that I've told them to stop sending me!
If the only other option wasn't AT&T, I'd probably have already switched.
Second, newspaper is already a fuel. It burns great. They even sell "portable grills" that are nothing more than big tin cans with some holes, into which you stuff some newspaper that you light afire and cook your hamburgers on top of.
She did not expect the authorities and 3rd party people she didn't authorize to see them. Of course you people have no grasp of reality,
Several years ago, many people started using these new-fangled things called "cell phones". For reasons I will never understand, people who were talking into a small box with an antenna on the top of it didn't grasp the concept of "radio", and that if their little box with an antenna on the top of it could receive and reproduce sounds from a distance there might be other little boxes that could receive and reproduce the same sounds. They did not expect anyone but the person whose phone number they had dialled into the little box to actually hear what they were saying.
This was back in the days when people still had other little boxes with antennas on the top that would reproduce sounds (and marvel of marvels, even pictures!) from a distance. It's not like "radio" should be a foreign concept to anyone. And yet, to these people, it was.
What was the solution to the problem of people thinking that nobody else could hear them talking on a radio? Was it to ENCRYPT the radio signal so nobody could understand what was being said? Oh, no. The only solution was to make listening to their signals illegal, and to make it illegal for other radios to be able to receive those signals.
So today, when it is almost trivial to build wideband receivers to add functionality to radios, we have laws that force manufacturers to cut large sections out of the available coverage, even after the functions of those frequencies are changing.
What is the moral of that story? Stupid people have stupid expectations, and the stupid laws that result from bending reality to their stupid expectations are, well, stupid. Now, I will admit that giving these stupid people the legal expectation that their secret conversations were secret did improve the quality of listening that the rest of us pragmatists who already owned radios heard. When people think they cannot be overheard, they will say the darndest things.
But please, rant about "reality" a bit more.
How do you figure?
Because so far all you've said is that the government is ignoring a prohibition against unreasonable searches, and that SCOTUS has decided in a different situation that an X-ray scan needed to meet a certain burden before it was reasonable. You've now started to argue about whether it is reasonable, which is the point I was making. You can't just say "you're ignoring a rule" when the rule has clear exceptions. You need to show that the exceptions don't apply -- an now you are.
And that's the only point I was trying to make, along with not putting the blame on TSA for something they didn't do. Whether it is unreasonable or not is a different argument.
Point taken. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Ek vs. US that an X-Ray scan requires the same burden of proof as a strip search.
Ok. That sets the burden of proof. It doesn't yet prove that the scanning is an unreasonable search. You've just moved the argument from "is this unreasonable" to "has it met THIS level of reaonableness?" You still cannot claim that the prohibition is being ignored because you haven't yet shown that THIS kind of search fails to meet the same standard as another type of search.
In other words, the standards for boarding the flight from Amsterdam or the flight from Paris were exactly the same as the standards for boarding a flight in the U.S. And those standards were insufficient to either provide a deterrent or to prevent would-be terrorists from boarding the two airplanes.
Ummm, citation required?
The failure of the people performing the searches to meet the standards does not prove that the standards are insufficient. That is like saying that an EPA standard for 1 ppm of some contaminant in a public water supply was insufficient if the people running the water supply failed to achieve the 1 ppm level. Whether the 1 ppm level is safe or not is completely unconnected with the inability or ability of those who are required to meet it to do so.
The two bombers referred to above did not slip by TSA, because TSA was not involved in their screening. They may (or may not) have set the standards, but the failure of the French National Police to notice that the shoe bomber had a bomb in his shoe is a failure of the French National Police, not the TSA. You might argue that TSA WOULD HAVE missed them, based on existing TSA standards, but that's speculation and not fact.
Why waste time blaming TSA for things they didn't do when there is so much that you can blame them for actually doing? It's like blaming the 3 year old child for forgetting to feed the goldfish when he's just pulled the hand-crafted heirloom cookie jar off the shelf and it smashed through your 60" wide-screen television. You'll just confuse the child and make yourself look like a foolish parent.
You could also blame the TSA for failing to prevent the flight attendant who popped the cabin door and jumped out with a six pack, but that would also be something they weren't responsible for stopping, and you'd be just as wrong as when you blame them for Reid or the other guy.
However, I would argue that, before the government has the right to ignore the prohibition upon unreasonable search in the 4th Amendment
Your argument fails upon its face. The government is not ignoring any prohibition. They would be claiming that the search via body scanner is not an unreasonable one, and thus the prohibition does not apply. That is significantly different than ignoring the prohibition. You need to argue that the search is unreasonable, not that they are ignoring you when you claim it is unreasonable.
It's like when you come to an intersection with a yield sign. If you drive through without stopping, would you say that you ignored the yield sign, or did you comply with it fully by being ready to yield if required? Or, for the more esoteric reference, consider when JJ from the network told Isaac Jaffe that the network suggestions for improving his show had been ignored, and Isaac quite properly told him that the suggestions had been considered and dismissed, and asked if JJ thought that his judgement should replace that of Isaac.*
Furthermore, since there have been at least two would-be terrorists since TSA took over airport security (the "underwear bomber" and the "shoe bomber"), both of whom slipped past TSA ...
The underwear bomber boarded his US-bound flight in Amsterdam. The shoe bomber boarded his flight in Paris, France, after being detained by French National Police. TSA was involved with neither one.
In light of the evidence available, I am skeptical of any claims that TSA actually provides any kind of deterrent...
I cannot argue that TSA does a wonderful job, but please use valid evidence (there certainly is enough of it) when pointing out how little they actually accomplish. The two biggies you listed aren't evidence against the TSA; in fact, one could argue that they chose to board and demolish flights originating outside the US just to avoid the chance of being caught by TSA. That would make TSA something of a deterrent. Not that it is true, but the argument could be made.
* "Sports Night". The same episode, I think, with the monolog about "I can make tubes..." referring to Philo Farnsworth. And the marvelous "I will devote the rest of my life to making the rest of yours miserable; if you think I'm just mouthing at you, ask anyone" put down from Sam to JJ as he tells them to leave. And the tag "I have two goals when I get up each morning. One is to not take a drink. The other is to raise the ratings of this show to the point that what almost happened here today doesn't. Trust me. I won't make fools out of you". Sigh. Quo vadimus?
I suggest that you find some real conspiracies ...
I suggest the same to you. Your list is rather left-leaning. You might have noted that CNN spent a great deal of time on the hurricane. Considering there was a massive overthrow of a petty dictator going on at the same time that seemed to merit endless coverage of every bullet fired, and involved (gasp) the detention of news media (gasp) against (gasp) their will (gasp!) that's saying a lot.
There are millions of people every day dependent upon manufactured medications to maintain mental function, and millions more who are taking medication because someone else thinks they need mental function adjustement. Those medications are, for the most part, administered orally.
What, does it surprise anyone that a bacterium producing a mind altering compound in the gut would have that compound absorbed and transported via the bloodstream, when we depend on exactly that transport method for manufactured drugs?
but the truth still hasn't stopped the jokes)
The truth is the reason for the jokes. We all know what he said, just some people want to deny it.
"In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."" http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm. If you want to argue that he "promoted" the internet, fine, but to claim that "create" means simply "promote", you're wrong. Try telling the actual creators of JIF peanut butter that you created JIF peanut butter because you promote the brand and they'll laugh you into next week.
You want to laugh at Quayle because he used a valid but older spelling for "potatoe", then accept the hoots and howls when Gore talks about creating things.
Oh come on. That's bullshit. You know as well as I that the intended use standard applies.
Whatever "standard use" policy you think applies does not change the fact that those companies knowingly make and knowingly distribute devices that facilitate illegal activities. That "standard use" policy may make them eventually not liable for producing those devices, but produce them to do. And you might note that "standard use" did not protect Napster.
Conversely, meat is meant to be eaten,
In your rush to call me a liar, did you even bother to note that I clearly differentiated between actions that are themselves a danger to others and actions that are indirectly a danger? Like producing tainted meat is a direct danger, while producing a copy machine, or any other "device" with "security issues", is not.
There's a very obvious difference.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I am an extremely confident individual who has almost no feeling of need to justify myself to others. I could care less about what people that I don't care about think of me...
Hmmm. A confident individual who has no clue how foolish he looks to others, or do you really mean you could care less about what others think about you? If the latter, I apologize.
There's a big difference between selling jelly at the farmers market and knowingly releasing devices that facilitate identity theft,
Xerox, Canon, Ricoh, and several other companies knowingly manufacture devices that facilitate not only identity theft but copyright violation and child pornography. They're called "copy machines". Several companies knowingly manufacture devices that facilitate copyright violations, namely "DVD recorders".
Many many companies knowingly distribute devices that knowingly allow the violation of many different laws. I can buy radios from Kenwood, Motorola, Tait, EF Johnson, and a host of other companies that allow me trivially to jam police communications. Or aircraft/ATC communications. I can buy credit card readers that allow the theft of CC info. I can buy cars that allow me to speed, and even run people over.
or knowingly selling meat that was contaminated with feces when the guy working in the factory cut too deep.
There's a big difference between commiting an act that by itself causes damage to individuals, and providing a device that can be used in illegal or damaging ways.
Somebody sold that guy who "cut too deep" the knife he used to make that cut. Is the knife manufacturer liable for the misuse of the product because he knew that someone using the product to "cut too deep" at a meat packing plant would cause contamination of the meat product? Note the word "knowingly".
No, they'll stop making stuff because unlimited liability for 'any risk' is simply insane.
This. I wish I had mod points today.
Everything anyone does has risk. The only secure computer is one that is turned off. The only secure cell phone is one that has the battery removed. The only secure ... well, you get the idea.
Absolute security is an impossible dream, an unreachable goal, and a continuous drain on money and time. At some point, we all have to weigh the cost/benfit ratios of what we are doing and get on with our lives. E.g., the value of getting to work greatly outweighs the risks involved in driving there, so I do it. The value of cleaning oneself outweighs the risks involved in taking a shower.
That's the equation that people seem to forget when talking about safety and hacking. There is a cost to safety and security, and sometimes the cost is more than the risks would cost. What would it cost to put a thermal/smoke detector in every toaster, connected to an internal fire extinguisher and cell phone that dials 911 in an emergency? Well, toasters sometimes start to burn, wouldn't the safety be worth it? That $20 toaster would now cost $200 and nobody would buy it. Or you could get the government to write a law saying you had to buy that kind of toaster, just like they have laws saying you must have smoke detectors in certainly residences. The former is economics at work; the latter a governmental distortion of those principles. And look out when one of those toaster safety features doesn't work, the company will be sued anyway.
You can't do encryption over HAM waves because it is supposed to be free and open to all that qualify, not a place for exclusivity. Also they want to be able to monitor to make sure people aren't using it for commercial purposes.
The reason is exclusively the latter. The former has nothing to do with it. As a repeater trustee (my callsign on the repeater) I can tell you not to use it and the FCC will back me up.
You actually can do encryption over ham radio. HSMM (high speed multi-media) is the ham version of 2.4G wireless. Encryption (WEP) is standard there. The rules prohibit encryption with the intent to hide the meaning. The HSMM folks publish the WEP key. They can't be intending to hide the meaning, therefore.
Second, Austria (I think it was. One of those "Aus..." countries, anyway.) has made it legal to encrypt domestic communications on frequencies above 50 MHz. Our USA ARRL cannot be arsed to push for the same rules for us.
But you won't be buying the encryption keys for encrypted P25 traffic there.
I don't see much distinction between the union saying "Send lots of protest emails to X" and any given person asking a group to "Write your congress critter."
I do. "Send thousands of emails to these company executives to complain about their 'practices' and show them who is boss" is significantly different than "send an email to your congressman to voice your opinon on bill X". First, you are a constituent of your congressman; the people being told to send floods of email are not customers or employees of the company. One vs. thousands. "express your opinion" vs. "get back at".
The clear intent is to voice an opposing opinion to whatever X did,
No. You can express your opinion in one email. Sending thousands shows a clear intent to harass and cause damage.
Regarding most of the emails coming from the union servers, that could be the union maliciously attacking the company...
It is the union providing the resources to people who are attacking the company at the request of the union.
or it could be the union providing the use of their server for employees to protest anonymously.
It isn't employees who are attacking their own company, it is union members. That union doesn't represent anyone who works there.
Who's to say without further discovery?
If we knew nothing other that what you said, we wouldn't know enough. We know a lot more. We read the fine article. We linked one back from that to the legal article.
I do agree that spam mailing/calling their sales lines was a pretty shitty thing to do, though.
Pretty abusive, I'd say. Maybe even a violation of a law that covers computer abuse.
It isn't hard to set up rules
For you, maybe. Not everyone is so computer literate. Are the computer illiterate just supposed to put up with crapmail floods and do nothing? "Oh, ok, I don't know how to filter out ten thousand emails automatically, so I'll just sit here all day doing it manually and say nothing..."
route all email coming from *@whinyunion.org
The article said it came from the servers, not that it had a from address with the union domain name.
And, of course, once those ten thousand emails are in your inbox, the rules that would block them from getting there won't help. If they all come from different addresses, which any halfway intelligent crapmail flooder would do, you can't even filter the mailbox itself.
Why are so many people going so far into left field to defend this union's abuse?
Most modern public service radio systems have used frequency hopping for the last 10 or more years.
You are confusing trunking with frequency hopping or spread spectrum.
Trunking has a dedicated control channel that tells every radio that is part of a talkgroup (predefined group) to "go to channel X" so everyone in the talkgroup hears the same thing. Yes, modern scanners can monitor that control channel and do the same thing. This channel hopping is done on a per-transmission basis. I.e., once the talker is assigned a transmission channel, he and all the receivers stay there until he lets up on the push-to-talk button.
Frequency hopping is based on a pseudo-random number generator that tells each radio independently "go to channel X" after a very short period of time on channel Y. Each radio acts on its own, there is no control channel for anyone to monitor. The pseudo-random sequence is different for each "talkgroup". The channel hopping happens based on time, not transmission. A one-second transmission may occur on thirteen or fifty different frequencies sequentially.
The http://www.trisquare.us/products.htm TriSquare eXRS products are an example of commercial public spread spectrum radios. They demonstrate the biggest problem with that kind of system: you need to know the "code" for who you want to talk to before you can talk to them. This is ok in a managed environment where everyone is assigned codes by a central authority that publishes the list. It's not good for someone who is driving down the road and wants to call someone in the area he's never talked to before.
The advantage to trunking is that it is relatively simple. The BIG downside from a public safety standpoint is that it DEMANDS a control system to tell everyone what to do. If your control system happens to be, say, on top of the building that has just collapsed, you don't use trunking anymore. It is also relatively easy to jam, and to listen to.
Another downside is that users must be trained to wait for the "go ahead" beep from their radios before talking. There is a non-zero amount of time between the push of the button and actual transmission, because the talk request must first go to the control system, the control system must find and allocate an empty channel, and then it must transmit that information to all users, including the user who wants to talk. Once this is done, the user can start talking. Sometimes, if there are no open channels, it doesn't happen right away.
The advantage to SS is that it is harder to jam and harder for eavesdroppers. That makes it harder for interoperability.
TANSTAAFL. Every system has tradeoffs.
Why shouldn't essentially everything be encrypted? That sounds like the sane default to me.
Because encryption requires management of encryption keys, which require security clearances for people who go around loading keys in radios and need to store keys locally.
It creates a terrible headache for backup radio systems and radio caches. I.e., the feds have several large storage areas for equipment that is needed in a disaster but wouldn't get much use otherwise. Someone would need to keep all those radios keyed up to date if everything was encrypted. Also, the radios need better security if they are encrypted. I manage a stack of about two dozen radios -- it would be a real PITA if I had to get a clearance so I could go rekey them once a week.
For CAP (Civil Air Patrol), they are getting/have gotten encryption capable radios. Out here, there is nobody with a clearance to manage the keys and keying of radios. It also shuts out personally owned equipment use, and mostly there isn't much that needs to be encrypted in the first place. CAP is getting this capability because they sometimes in some areas support fed agencies that want encrypted traffic. (The aircraft radios won't do it, anyway.)
And finally, encryption really puts the nail in the coffin of the idea of "interoperability"; that is, different agencies being able to communicate with each other when they need to. E.g., a major forest fire needs people from many agencies and different fire departments to fight it. They all show up with their own radio equipment. Interop means they all have standard channels (VTAC, VCALL, UTAC, etc) (look up "NIFOG" in google for the field guide that defines this all) and can talk to each other as soon as they arrive. Encryption means those who have encryptable radios have to get the right keys installed before they can do anything, and those without encryptionable radios don't talk to anyone.
And really, finally, encryption does NOTHING to prevent the issues of jamming and interference. The only people who haven't figured out that P25 digital systems have nowhere near the coverage as the old analog wideband systems are the radio manufacturers making billions selling the new P25 whiz-bang radios. We did a simple test out here (somewhere on the west coast) comparing P25 to analog narrowband, and P25 would fail where analog narrowband woked fine. One company (with the intials "M") came out here and proposed a trunked digital system to replace all the local public service systems, and they wound up with about thirty radio sites to provide the same coverage that we are getting with a dozen. Just doesn't work as well, and that's personal experience.
If the company has feeble and ridiculous capacities for its size, then maybe they need to beef up their systems before whining about other people breaking them.
The system is "feeble and ridiculous" only when hundreds of people are sending thousands of emails each over a few day period. And the same for voicemails.
Even if it took only five seconds each to determine an email was crapmail and delete it, if ten people send you a thousand emails each, thats ten thousand emails to wade through, and it would take 50,000 seconds to deal with. There are 86,400 seconds in a day. Eight hours has only 28,800 seconds. What you are trying to justify is something that will take each employee involved almost two days of work for each day of crapmail coming in. Doing NOTHING but dealing with the crapmail. Nothing else.
Not to mention that I don't know of any email client that would be graceful in dealing with ten thousand emails a day, and we are ignoring completely the issues of bandwidth and CPU processing for those incoming emails.
Now imagine that a hundred people are sending you just ten voicemails on your cellphone each day. A thousand voicemails. Keep in mind that this infrastructure is NOT provided by the company being attacked, but by the cellphone provider. Maybe fifteen seconds each to deal with them and the voice menus, that's fifteen thousand seconds a day just dealing with voicemail. More than four hours a day of non-stop cellphone use. It doesn't matter if you have an unlimited plan, there is a physical limit for what one person can do on a cellphone.
I don't think there is any way to justify this attack. What others have said is that the union doesn't represent anyone at that company, and it certainly isn't trying to organize anyone there by sending executives a ton of crap. They're trying to punish the company for their "practices", and they have zero standing to do that because they aren't involved in any way with that company.
I didn't expect there to be a day when I would be defending a union's actions.
I fully expected the knee-jerk "companies are bad, unions are good" reaction from many /. readers. No matter what the union does, it's against a company, so it must be good.
Just reading the summary should tell you that. The judge didn't decide that "too many emails is hacking". He decided that a lawsuit could proceed to make a finding of fact whether or not an action was a violation of the computer FRAUD and ABUSE act. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but all the judge said was "let's adjudicate the matter and see". And "hacking"? No, probably not "hacking", but I'd certainly call email and voicemail bombs to be abuse. If you are deliberately overloading a sales phone line with crap in order to punish a company, then you are probably also committing fraud. You aren't a customer, but you are pretending to be one when you call the sales number. Or send email to the sales address.
Doesn't change that their car was defective from the moment they sold it to you.
If you work for a company that forces you to BUY the company car just so you can drive it on company business, you are a moron.
If you are referring in any way to the analogy being used here, nothing was sold to you. You were allowed to use the company car for work and told that it had a problem with the engine and you were not supposed to drive it at high RPM. You then went out and deliberately drove it in first gear for everything you did. Yes, nothing changes the fact that the car had a problem, but it was running when you started using it and you deliberately violated the company instructions on how to use it. That makes you liable for it not working anymore.
Nobody drives at a low gear for the entire trip.
And, until instructed to do so by the union leadership, nobody sent multiple mass emails to the company executives.
On the other hand, if I'm driving that car normally, and the car breaks down, even if I put it at high revs (reasonably high, not red-lining it) while accelerating during the normal course of my driving, and even if I was warned not to do that, they sure as hell can't blame me for breaking an already defective car.
Yes, they can. You broke the rules they put on the use of their vehicle, and did it knowing that your action was likely to cause further damage.
If you go to a library and borrow a book, and they tell you that the binding is fragile and the paper old so please do not splay the pages out to make photocopies, and you run over to the photocopy machine and in the process of making ten copies of the entire book you destroy it, guess who is going to pay for replacing that book? The answer isn't "the library".
If the same library has a display of an old document, and the signs say "no drinks or food in the display area", and you walk up to the document and spill your Slurpie all over it, who is responsible, you for ignoring the signs, or the library for not keeping the document locked up where you can't get to it?
Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not.
What is the intent of posting a website address on /.?
If you take the opportunity now to post the email address of the company, it would appear your intent is to harass the company, since there would be no clear purpose other than to do that. Yes, you'd be guilty of harassment.
If, however, the web address of some site is posted as part of a normal article, the intent would be to inform and discuss the subject, not harass the website owner. Of course, nothing would stop someone from actually submitting an article with the intent to harass, but one would hope that the editors would prevent it from appearing.
If they can't do the normal thing and empty their mailboxes in a reasonable manner,
What is "reasonable" and "normal" for you doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else. For my mother, for example, "normal" is to check email every few days. For you, you may be online every second of every day and reading and replying to email the moment it appears. "Normal" is somewhere inbetween. And again, if you know of a limitation and do something deliberate ("hey, everyone, send lots of email to the company to complain...") to exceed that known limitation, then what is "normal" is irrelevant. Notice that the example I just used isn't the person sending the email, it is the one who instigates the sending of "lots of email" that is.
The judge will have his ruling overturned.
Maybe. Maybe not. And it may be overturned again higher up the ladder. But it is certainly a valid argument that someone who causes damage to someone else by inciting others to perform an action that is known to cause that damage would be liable. For example, if you send a message to create a flashmob of 1000 people to go into a local McDonalds at lunch time, to the point that normal business cannot be conducted, I would expect a judge would accept a suit naming you as responsible in a civil action, even if you didn't bother showing up.
So the government plans to spend $1trn (or whatever) on the military this year. The government wants to save money, so they reduce staff numbers, mothball some equipment, switch to non-brand baked beans in the ration packs and whatnot, and thusly manage to spend $100 billion less than was projected. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Isn't that a "$100 billion saving from the military budget"? What's the other approach to saving money except for spending less?
There isn't one. The point you miss is that "spending less than you plan on" isn't actually "spending less". It is only spending less than you planned on.
I can make up all kinds of plans for what I want to spend. As the DOD, I can say I want to spend $1 trillion and then accept a "compromise" and spend only $900 billion, but I'd be wrong to call that a $100 billions savings. I made up the $1 trillion number. I didn't spend that much last year (the 2010 DOD budget request was for $533 billion), I simply added more than I really wanted to spend to next year's budget, knowing full well that I'd be able to "compromise" down to a number that was still spending more than last year, and more than I actually have in my pocket.
So, if I get my $900 billion, I've actually INCREASED spending by more than $300 billion, not saved $100 billion. In Washington terms, however, I saved us all $100 billion (which I will project across ten years to make it $1 trillion in savings), I "compromised" and that is good, and yes I get more money than I really need. Win win win win win.
This is standard practice in DC. Ask for more, accept a smaller increase, and then call it a cut when arguing for even more.
1) Plan on buying something for $100.
2) Haggle the price down to $75.
3) Congratulations, you've saved $25.
What's your point?
Here's how to solve the deficit and debt problem all in one day. Plan on buying an F22 Osprey from the manufacturer for $843 trillion dollars. When the plane is delivered, pay only $100 trillion dollars.
Oila! You've saved $743 trillion dollars. That's enough to pay off the debt, isn't it? If it isn't, simply repeat the process until you are debt-free and making a large profit. Now that the government is making a profit, nobody will need to pay anything in taxes. Win-Win-Win!
Now, all you need to do is find a company that will sell you an airplane for $100 trillion dollars. That might be hard to do.