everyone I know who has a VW, or has had one in the past 10 years (around 8 or so) has all gotten BETTER than advertized MPGs.
It's good to see VW representatives surfing Slashdot to try and repair VW's shattered reputation.:)
Actually, this has been written about before. When the cars are in test mode, with reduced NOX emissions, the fuel economy is also worse. So real world economy (and CO2 emissions) are better than under test.
[not associated with VW in any way. Heck, I haven't ever owned a VW]
However protesters and government being in agreement does squash your silly suggestion that its part of some government conspiracy heading towards dictatorship.
Alert... logic FAIL!!!!!
It doesn't matter why these people tried to demonstrate. They wanted to be on the streets making their political views known and the government suppressed their rights to political speech. Suppressing demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them is a path that every dictatorship has gone down.
Frankly, I cannot believe how naive and childish you are in thinking that just because the protesters may have agreed in some small way with government policy means that suppressing the protest was the action of a government that is interested in freedom of speech.
So instead, do nothing. Don't worry about people getting slaughtered. After all, France is a big country, it can afford to have a few hundred people murdered every once in a while.
Your argument is that the government must do something, even if that something is completely pointless and anti-democratic.
The same money that is put into "security" would save more lives if put into other fields, like traffic safety, help for the homeless, etc..
But apparently we're still having elections and whatnot.
Are you Cricket or Paul? Anyway, you need to study your history a little more. The Soviet Union held elections. Communist China held elections. Hitler came to power through an election.
The populace of most western countries is spied upon in a manner that far surpasses the spying on citizens that took place in East Germany.
What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.
They were going to protest, were they not? How is that not dissent? Just because they may not have been about to protest against the French government does not stop it from being dissent.
You are being obtuse. The story title is "France Using Emergency Powers To Prevent Climate Change Protests". The story is about the suppression of protests. Protests are about dissent.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
The term VPN has been co-opted by providers that provide VPN and routing services. People pay for this service so that they can mask their true location -- for example, to use video services not available in their country.
Individual users are not using the VPN to connect to each other, but instead to connect to the VPN endpoint, from where their encapsulated packets are routed to the destination website (and obviously, the replies are routed back the same way)
If you look at the documentaries, it's very clear that the FBI was sorting through the bulk metadata. IIRC they were looking for a cell phone call made at a certain time in order to trace the caller.
The issue is not whether the data was searched, the issue is whether the search produced actionable information. The only reference I can find suggests that it was actually a hindrance.
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests.
An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent.
Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
They did use the metadata in the hunt for the Boston Bombers, if you remember. The FBI basically admitted it while edging around talking directly about the classified database of phone calls and when they were made.
No, actually, I don't remember any reference to the use of bulk metadata being useful in the hunt for the bombers. I did find one link that stated that the bulk collection was actually a hindrance, because there was too much data to soft through.
Also, the primary incentive-based reason people at our intelligence agencies don't deliberately allow significant attacks (at least on US soil) in that they would get lined up against the wall and shot if anyone found out
So why hasn't someone been lined up against the wall for the Paris attacks? The security services had enough information. It doesn't take a direct order to allow something to go ahead, merely that resources are focused elsewhere, leading to the "unfortunate" consequence of a successful attack.
If I was to guess I would say someone digging through the comments found something really juicy that had been made by someone who really wouldn't want it coming out that they said that.
Could some mischief be achieved by planting some comments now? Use a service like mailinator to get an anonymous account, but make the name associated with the account "Donald Trump", or "Bernie Sanders", or any of the other candidates, and write a comment that is mildly offensive now, but appears much more offensive if written by that candidate. Wait until January, then make sure the comment gets noticed.
Let's see: Paris: all attackers known in advance. Warnings provided to French government. Not using encrypted communications. Boston: Specific warnings provided to US authorities. Probably not using encrypted communications (the NSA and others would have made this claim, so by default, we can assume the opposite) 9/11. Most, if not all attackers already known to FBI/CIA. Again, we can assume that no encrypted communications were involved.
In other words, the bulk surveillance has no value in preventing terrorist attacks. If so, what is it for? Blackmailing politicians? Blackmailing the wealthy and powerful?
The NSA/FBI/CIA: price for failure: more resources. More power. More everything. One could almost imagine that there is a strong incentive in letting a small number of terror attacks take place.
Maybe force people to think before they "speak"? Society is an imperfect machine at best and if you take away the only 'lubricant' it has (civility) things will break down.
Again, they already spoke. What is it about the difference between past and future that you don't understand?
Let's take your example a bit further. The nasty comments are there. They already exist. What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings? Will it really help if you know the names of the people who wrote those vile things?
Not allowing future anonymous comments isf one thing. De-anonymizing existing comments is entirely another.
In some ways certainly they are "ahead" - California isn't shy about trying out new new things, or to put it another way "imposing more and more mandates on its citizens without any way of knowing how it will work out". Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it blows up in their face.
Oh, please. You could be in Kentucky or West Virginia, where the Koch brothers are experimenting with the laws.
Overall, we can see what all the experimentation in California, the willingness to jump off ledges no-one has previously tested, has done to California's economy over the last 30 years. Some people -like- California despite the economic and other problems.
Yeah, I would hate to live somewhere where jobs are plentiful, where the government is running a surplus... wait, what economic problems?
California. As well as not banning direct sales by auto manufacturers, it provides more protections for employees (banning non-compete contract terms), limits on how short yellow lights can be at signals, and the state government is running a surplus.
2. Tax is payable on unrealized gains, not total assets:
IRC 877A imposes a mark-to-market regime, which generally means that all property of a covered expatriate is deemed sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation date. Any gain arising from the deemed sale is taken into account for the tax year of the deemed sale notwithstanding any other provisions of the Code.
There is a $680k deduction, which is unrelated to any primary residence:
The amount that would otherwise be includible in gross income by reason of the deemed sale rule is reduced (but not to below zero) by $600,000, which amount is to be adjusted for inflation for calendar years after 2008 (the âoeexclusion amountâ). For calendar year 2014, the exclusion amount is $680,000
Exactly! The only way to fix this problem is by taxing the products when they enter the country. It's ridiculous to allow corporations to hide billions overseas.
We could also eliminate the right on non-US companies to contribute to political campaigns and PACs.
If you have over $2 million in total assets, the Federal Government will demand a slice of that before you can expatriate. Yes, those are accumulated assets that have already been taxed when first gained. Renouncing really doesn't solve the problem...
Citation? Because I don't think it works like that. I think that you get taxed on unrealized (and hence untaxed) gains, but you also get to deduct the first $600k. This also applies to green card holders who leave the USA.
You forgot the other rule:Have a spouse in a full-time gig with medical benefits.
Once those contractors hit 50+ years old, if they have families and have to buy their own insurance, those consulting gigs are going to look like poor deals.
Blackberries have to connect to a BES in order to work, IIRC. For a corporate user, that would be the company's own server. Joe Public would normally connect to a BES run by RIM and under their control, and thus amenable to government intercepts.
You missed my point. The article does not state that BB's interception capabilities are limited to intercepting Joe Public's communications. This implies that BB can also intercept communications when a corporate BES is in use.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this has been written about before. When the cars are in test mode, with reduced NOX emissions, the fuel economy is also worse. So real world economy (and CO2 emissions) are better than under test.
[not associated with VW in any way. Heck, I haven't ever owned a VW]
Alert ... logic FAIL!!!!!
It doesn't matter why these people tried to demonstrate. They wanted to be on the streets making their political views known and the government suppressed their rights to political speech. Suppressing demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them is a path that every dictatorship has gone down.
Frankly, I cannot believe how naive and childish you are in thinking that just because the protesters may have agreed in some small way with government policy means that suppressing the protest was the action of a government that is interested in freedom of speech.
Your argument is that the government must do something, even if that something is completely pointless and anti-democratic.
The same money that is put into "security" would save more lives if put into other fields, like traffic safety, help for the homeless, etc..
Are you Cricket or Paul? Anyway, you need to study your history a little more. The Soviet Union held elections. Communist China held elections. Hitler came to power through an election.
The populace of most western countries is spied upon in a manner that far surpasses the spying on citizens that took place in East Germany.
They were going to protest, were they not? How is that not dissent? Just because they may not have been about to protest against the French government does not stop it from being dissent.
You are being obtuse. The story title is "France Using Emergency Powers To Prevent Climate Change Protests". The story is about the suppression of protests. Protests are about dissent.
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
The term VPN has been co-opted by providers that provide VPN and routing services. People pay for this service so that they can mask their true location -- for example, to use video services not available in their country.
Individual users are not using the VPN to connect to each other, but instead to connect to the VPN endpoint, from where their encapsulated packets are routed to the destination website (and obviously, the replies are routed back the same way)
The issue is not whether the data was searched, the issue is whether the search produced actionable information. The only reference I can find suggests that it was actually a hindrance.
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests. An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent.
Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
No, actually, I don't remember any reference to the use of bulk metadata being useful in the hunt for the bombers. I did find one link that stated that the bulk collection was actually a hindrance, because there was too much data to soft through.
So why hasn't someone been lined up against the wall for the Paris attacks? The security services had enough information. It doesn't take a direct order to allow something to go ahead, merely that resources are focused elsewhere, leading to the "unfortunate" consequence of a successful attack.
Could some mischief be achieved by planting some comments now? Use a service like mailinator to get an anonymous account, but make the name associated with the account "Donald Trump", or "Bernie Sanders", or any of the other candidates, and write a comment that is mildly offensive now, but appears much more offensive if written by that candidate. Wait until January, then make sure the comment gets noticed.
Let's see:
Paris: all attackers known in advance. Warnings provided to French government. Not using encrypted communications.
Boston: Specific warnings provided to US authorities. Probably not using encrypted communications (the NSA and others would have made this claim, so by default, we can assume the opposite)
9/11. Most, if not all attackers already known to FBI/CIA. Again, we can assume that no encrypted communications were involved.
In other words, the bulk surveillance has no value in preventing terrorist attacks. If so, what is it for? Blackmailing politicians? Blackmailing the wealthy and powerful?
The NSA/FBI/CIA: price for failure: more resources. More power. More everything. One could almost imagine that there is a strong incentive in letting a small number of terror attacks take place.
Again, they already spoke. What is it about the difference between past and future that you don't understand?
Let's take your example a bit further. The nasty comments are there. They already exist. What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings? Will it really help if you know the names of the people who wrote those vile things?
Not allowing future anonymous comments isf one thing. De-anonymizing existing comments is entirely another.
The comments on the article make for depressing reading. People seem to have swallowed the horror stories about encryption hook, line and sinker.
Oh, please. You could be in Kentucky or West Virginia, where the Koch brothers are experimenting with the laws.
Yeah, I would hate to live somewhere where jobs are plentiful, where the government is running a surplus ... wait, what economic problems?
California. As well as not banning direct sales by auto manufacturers, it provides more protections for employees (banning non-compete contract terms), limits on how short yellow lights can be at signals, and the state government is running a surplus.
I laugh whenever I see comments like that. Move to a state that doesn't have retarded laws.
Parent should not be modded insightful, since the "information" given in the post is largely false.
You are not over 50 with a family to provide for, are you? Either that, or you are earning ~$4000 per day.
1. The $2M sum is only a test for eligibility.
2. Tax is payable on unrealized gains, not total assets:
There is a $680k deduction, which is unrelated to any primary residence:
We could also eliminate the right on non-US companies to contribute to political campaigns and PACs.
Citation? Because I don't think it works like that. I think that you get taxed on unrealized (and hence untaxed) gains, but you also get to deduct the first $600k. This also applies to green card holders who leave the USA.
You forgot the other rule:Have a spouse in a full-time gig with medical benefits.
Once those contractors hit 50+ years old, if they have families and have to buy their own insurance, those consulting gigs are going to look like poor deals.
You missed my point. The article does not state that BB's interception capabilities are limited to intercepting Joe Public's communications. This implies that BB can also intercept communications when a corporate BES is in use.