No, they are saying that the US has too many laws that bar advanced scams with securities, hence it is not very profitable to run such scams in the US.
But don't worry - it is very likely that whatever offer was going to be made would have excluded small investors outright; and that those US investors that would have been asked to consider buying into the fund have the offshore units that will allow them to do so now.
Since they repaid it, it most likely went into the TARP proceedings fund, whatever it was called. And the TARP law said nothing about checks or cheques from that fund going to the general populace.
No. Reading the Russian explanation it looks like a card that can be refused by filling out a refusal form (so not mandatory), it is only for government federal and local services, and, loosely quoting the explanation "has potential to be used elsewhere".
Since this is a company site, it is likely too optimistic about the card.
Too lazy to read the law, maybe some Russian slashdoter can step in and explain better.
Of course they aren't. They don't need to -- they get the data wholesale on request, just as they did from the telephone carriers when it were necessary.
Yes, because it totally makes economic sense to bolt something that costs at least $2-3 mil (sans the support costs, operator training and the ammo) on every ship.
Not to speak about the risks of putting guns that can destroy a large building from 10 kilometers away on a ship that is an easy target to just about anyone.
Well, judging from the outcome of the Iraqi war, not all seems to be peaches. Face it, you lost pretty bad.
The plans of the US administration to sell off Iraq to large US corporations fell completely through (incidentally, because those same corporations knew international law better than your own government).
The expensive "nation-building" exercise failed. US effectively handed Iraq to Iran. Even Obama's original "cut-n-run" plan failed, and he was forced to backpedal and commit more money. You got to pick the tab.
The US lost any goodwill she might have had with the Gulf countries after the first Gulf war, because Iraq was basically handed to Iran for free. US lost almost all goodwill she had with her NATO allies because of the WMD lies. You'll be alone in Afghanistan (which, btw, you invaded because of Caspian oil and gas) next year.
Your army may enjoy unlimited spending on toys for another couple of years until your government officially recognizes its default. And what then?
It is an interconnected world, and civilian murder (which you call "guerrilla warfare") isn't as fashionable as it was in August '45. And Iraq wasn't Granada or Panama, it was more like Vietnam.
Either you accept this and start working it into your own foreign relations, or you whine and get ignored - by your rivals (worthy ones like North Korea and Iran, and serious ones like China and Russia), and eventually by your staunchest allies (well, actually, some of them - like Israel - have been ignoring you from the outset).
If not, one day not very far away, you'll have no place to borrow money to finance your war machine. Guess who's going to buy your shit up on the cheap then? Guess also who'll be doing the selling;)
Excuse the US militarism all you wish, but the civilian victims of all wars the US started and fought post-WWII leave the number of Islam terrorist victims in the dust.
Blowing up shit with weaponry is getting more efficient, not less.
And I won't even mention the most important factor that motivates the terrorists. No, it ain't your freedoms.
No, these systems aren't designed to "save lives". These systems are designed to project power more efficiently, and the purpose of that is to impose commercial interests over nations that would not otherwise chosen to accept those at the terms they do when pressed.
The "saving lives" line is how they are being sold to the more conscientious of your population, but it is just that.
As I pointed out to you upthread, US is using advanced weaponry on citizens of other countries even when there is no war, just for intimidation.
Yes, that is why it is a great idea to automate murder and move the control away from the battlefield, to a room somewhere where the operators won't know if they're shooting at live targets or just playing a game.
That would make murder even more socially acceptable, no?
I've only seen the unedited Wikileaks tape, and there were no RPGs there. No WMDs either, for that matter.
But I was referring to the hundreds other post-war shooting "incidents" with scores of dead civilians each in Iraq. There were also many incidents of US soldiers shooting and killing journalists, friendly soldiers, animals, etc.
By the looks of it, the algorithm is definitely "shoot first, do the cover up later". With automated robots, there won't be the need to even cover up, it will be written off as a bug, and maybe a "fix is in the works" message will be posted on some internal.mil site.
Supplied by a top-5 candidate for privacy destruction?
Naturally. Which respectable, honest and sane company that delivers a product to YOU would build their business model on the concept of letting you build Stasi-like files online for you and your friends with them?
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are saying that the US has too many laws that bar advanced scams with securities, hence it is not very profitable to run such scams in the US.
But don't worry - it is very likely that whatever offer was going to be made would have excluded small investors outright; and that those US investors that would have been asked to consider buying into the fund have the offshore units that will allow them to do so now.
Since they repaid it, it most likely went into the TARP proceedings fund, whatever it was called. And the TARP law said nothing about checks or cheques from that fund going to the general populace.
Who is this "we" you're talking about? You seriously think you (or any random amalgamation of US citizens) have more influence with Uncle Sam than GS?
Not half as cool, but the fremen could control them worms in a sandstorm and be more or less invisible.
Which was kind of important at the end of the only good book in the series ;)
No, I am, like, darth sirious.
A phantom menace comes to mind.
Nope, even worse. It shows the current URL, a > and a part of the new one.
There is an "addon bar" for addon stuff, though, you can enable it from the toolbars menu.
Well, since its purpose is to identify by providing your name on it, I guess you could call it Name Identification Card.
Then refuse it.
No. Reading the Russian explanation it looks like a card that can be refused by filling out a refusal form (so not mandatory), it is only for government federal and local services, and, loosely quoting the explanation "has potential to be used elsewhere".
Since this is a company site, it is likely too optimistic about the card.
Too lazy to read the law, maybe some Russian slashdoter can step in and explain better.
I use about six languages on a daily basis and IMHO bing sucks at everything that isn't English.
Of course they aren't. They don't need to -- they get the data wholesale on request, just as they did from the telephone carriers when it were necessary.
Yes, because it totally makes economic sense to bolt something that costs at least $2-3 mil (sans the support costs, operator training and the ammo) on every ship.
Not to speak about the risks of putting guns that can destroy a large building from 10 kilometers away on a ship that is an easy target to just about anyone.
Overall I'd say most people were kinder and more decent than they are now.
I'm sure you know that from experience. Nice to meet someone on /. definitely older than I am.
Well, judging from the outcome of the Iraqi war, not all seems to be peaches. Face it, you lost pretty bad.
The plans of the US administration to sell off Iraq to large US corporations fell completely through (incidentally, because those same corporations knew international law better than your own government).
The expensive "nation-building" exercise failed. US effectively handed Iraq to Iran. Even Obama's original "cut-n-run" plan failed, and he was forced to backpedal and commit more money. You got to pick the tab.
The US lost any goodwill she might have had with the Gulf countries after the first Gulf war, because Iraq was basically handed to Iran for free. US lost almost all goodwill she had with her NATO allies because of the WMD lies. You'll be alone in Afghanistan (which, btw, you invaded because of Caspian oil and gas) next year.
Your army may enjoy unlimited spending on toys for another couple of years until your government officially recognizes its default. And what then?
It is an interconnected world, and civilian murder (which you call "guerrilla warfare") isn't as fashionable as it was in August '45. And Iraq wasn't Granada or Panama, it was more like Vietnam.
Either you accept this and start working it into your own foreign relations, or you whine and get ignored - by your rivals (worthy ones like North Korea and Iran, and serious ones like China and Russia), and eventually by your staunchest allies (well, actually, some of them - like Israel - have been ignoring you from the outset).
If not, one day not very far away, you'll have no place to borrow money to finance your war machine. Guess who's going to buy your shit up on the cheap then? Guess also who'll be doing the selling ;)
Excuse the US militarism all you wish, but the civilian victims of all wars the US started and fought post-WWII leave the number of Islam terrorist victims in the dust.
Blowing up shit with weaponry is getting more efficient, not less.
And I won't even mention the most important factor that motivates the terrorists. No, it ain't your freedoms.
No, these systems aren't designed to "save lives". These systems are designed to project power more efficiently, and the purpose of that is to impose commercial interests over nations that would not otherwise chosen to accept those at the terms they do when pressed.
The "saving lives" line is how they are being sold to the more conscientious of your population, but it is just that.
As I pointed out to you upthread, US is using advanced weaponry on citizens of other countries even when there is no war, just for intimidation.
Yes, that is why it is a great idea to automate murder and move the control away from the battlefield, to a room somewhere where the operators won't know if they're shooting at live targets or just playing a game.
That would make murder even more socially acceptable, no?
Yes. Didn't "you" also "win" right about then? The war ended sometime early 2003, no? Mission complete and all?
What "enemies" would "you" be shooting at in 2005 or 2007?
Doh. Make that Iraq.
What "enemy"? Iran's war ended in March 2003 or thereabouts.
I've only seen the unedited Wikileaks tape, and there were no RPGs there. No WMDs either, for that matter.
But I was referring to the hundreds other post-war shooting "incidents" with scores of dead civilians each in Iraq. There were also many incidents of US soldiers shooting and killing journalists, friendly soldiers, animals, etc.
By the looks of it, the algorithm is definitely "shoot first, do the cover up later". With automated robots, there won't be the need to even cover up, it will be written off as a bug, and maybe a "fix is in the works" message will be posted on some internal .mil site.
If these are the "skills" displayed by certain American helicopter pilots over Iraq, I'd say you're off by a lot.
"Shoot anything that moves" would be a very easy algorithm to implement.
Supplied by a top-5 candidate for privacy destruction?
Naturally. Which respectable, honest and sane company that delivers a product to YOU would build their business model on the concept of letting you build Stasi-like files online for you and your friends with them?
FB has had a "permalink"-like feature for over a year now.
Pitchfork some of them, say I.