Looks to me like he's just soliciting fiscally free donated code and avoiding the cost of hiring proggers. He's not claiming to make the site 'Open Source'; just intending to reap what's sown by people inclined to give away their work...
It's a tad bizarre that he requests the names of employers.
Arguably, the Internet can be used as a tool for the dissemination of propaganda -- including outright lies. This is at least partly due to
* The availability of free Web hosting. * The difficulty of confirming the identity and credentials of 'net publishers/speakers. * The occasional strange credulity of people...
An organized effort by any reasonably large group, be it a fringe, partisan group of people out to "get" somebody; or an activist group that does not bother with checking its "facts" can rapidly evangelize a cause with nonsense -- such as blatantly questionable statistics, out-of-context quotes, and so forth.
Is there any reason that the people *should* view the 'Net as a medium for information and activism, given all this? That is, why -- and how -- should people write or listen?
Perhaps that's a point in favor of explicit hints to the compiler; in, say, straight C, if both array1 and array2 are pointer types, there's not a clear guarantee from the snippet that the assignments are all independent. As you noted, ditto for C++ operator overloading, too.
Hmmm. Are there limits? I've never played _Fallout_...
I did have some *powerful* _Wasteland_ characters, which was also skill-based. Notably, WL prevented players from being too god-like by limiting the number of skills one could have; there came a point where even if you had free skill points, you couldn't use 'em. That, plus making the end base *nasty*...
A mage, arguably, might need to gesture, fiddle with components, or otherwise focus. In addition, there's the game balance reasons; in AD&D, high-level mages become *really* powerful under certain conditions (i.e. not having used up all their spells/item. GoI + protection from normal missiles + fire shield + haste self is a nifty combination), while, say, single-classed thieves don't gain that much.
I was mostly thinking that ya don't go around gunning people down in AD&D... there's not that much ranting about Satanism these days, as there is 'bout armed juvvies. {shrug}
Hmmm. "Paranoia" has a FAST combat system (no HP, even...), it's a lot of fun (in a twisted way...), and heck -- the player's aren't supposed to even be burdened by knowing the rules (most of which are classified above their security clearance.):-)
It is *not* a game, however, that easily allows attachment to one's character, nor promotes long campaigns full of detailed advancement, growth and development. Heh. But it can be great fun.
I'd agree *if* the hypothetical firearms owners were well-trained in their maintenance and usage. Even, say, for an armed guard walking the beat in a school (in constrast to arming untrained civvies), such as there actually was at Columbine, to be able to take down one or two shooters in an area full of panicking people you _don't_ want to shoot might be beyond many.
It'd also have to be carried and readily accessible, most likely; a weapon in a locked desk is useless if the owner is prevented from approaching it.
Hmmmm. Anybody know how whether and how much training is required before (guess this would mostly be a per-state thing...) permits are granted?
...so, like "Call of Cthulhu", "Shadowrun", or "GURPS"? Dunno if there've been many CRPGs (online or not) based on 'em or similar systems.
AD&D is probably the most familiar model to many, and thus would draw in the most potential customers. It's also clearly fantasy, which avoids certain political issues regarding games in contemporary settings...
No monthly fee? The ability for any ol' homey to set up a server? DM access? Dev for multiple platforms?
Hm. Sounds like the 3rd ed. changed a bit, 'tho, from the rules I'm used to. Interesting; dunno if that's good or bad, 'tho.
The fact that they've considered how to balance characters 'tween, say, Monty Haul games and more stingy modules is a positive sign.
If only they allowed players to control monsters for a lark... it might be amusing to compete, say, as Trolls to see how many PCs one can eat within a given time.;-)
{shrug} The onus is on the prosecutors to prove a case, right? AS an innocent man, I'd have a damn good chance of beating such a case -- particularly if I waived my right to a jury trial, methinks; went straight to trial ASAP; and show that the evidence is completely insufficient to prove trading. Even if I ran a 'crackable' box and that occured, the obvious point would be that such is possible on any 'crackable' box and thus the evidence in no way is incontrovertible. They'd have to be able to demonstrate a clear history of such transactions with evidence that cannot be trivially impeached -- like phone logs, correlating my physical location with logins, and so forth. They'd also have to explain the apparent inconsistency with having a decent amount of legitimate, purchased software...
That's not going to happen.
That sort of evidence *does* nail Mitnick to the wall, however; it's not like the case against him is bogus. He can have his lawyers try to delay as much as he wants, but tough.
True. We're a violent people, although it's unclear why -- the statistics just show we are. {shrug}
'suppose the issue boils down to:
* Do the people trust the Government, and believe that this will continue?
* If that trust will be violated, will the people be able to do anything 'bout it -- and will arms hurt or help?
* Is it feasible to confiscate arms and keep them in the hands of police/military?
Depending on the answers to those questions, one may argue completely differently. I'd have to say that in the case of the US, #3 is right out (law enforcement would have to sweep the nation, and Customs would have to be *really* tight); #1 is a 'yes' for many today, but a distinct 'no' from the Founding Fathers; and #2 is questionable, in that it'd all end up a mess. Eh.
Re:Could you believe I used to be a republican?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Ahhhh, Feinstein. The same Senator who appeared lately on... _Dateline_, was it? defending her role in the "Assault Weapons ban" that was based on specific features (such as flash suppressors, folding stock, etc), and who labelled every attempt to redesign thusly-banned weapons to comply as "craven".
But you'll find plenty of anti-drug people on both sides of the aisle, methinks. Remember the Reagan years, and the "Just Say No" campaign?
Re:Useless laws from useless people
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Prisons ain't cheap. "Cheap prison labour" ain't gonna happen in the US, unless they go Gulag-style or something like that. Plenty of white folks in jail for drug violations, also...
Money might be involved in that cocaine and heroin dealers tend to contribute less than alcohol concerns, 'tho -- alcohol also benefits from the fact that we tried already to ban it and failed, miserably.
There's a strong contingent of people who come from the "it's bad for you, it's bad for society, ergo it's now illegal" school. That, and inertia, are probably among the biggest reasons why the "drug war" is continuing. That, and the fact that other countries tend to ask the US for help in this regard.
Re:why are drugs illegal in the US anyway?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps * If allowed to stand, such would set precedents that would make further bizarre laws easier to pass.
* The sponsors of the bills think that they'll get 'em votes, particularly given that there's a strange level of "for-the-children"-is going on right now.
* Ending the "war on drugs" would be a serious admission of either the impossibility of prohibition, or possibly the wrongheadedness of trying. {shrug}
Hmmm. Governments do benefit from the forfeiture laws, 'tho, as do people who buy off the confiscated property...
Dunno. Maybe they fear people spying on them, if the agency lacks the relative notoriety or alleged ferocity of others.:-) 'sides, we probably spy on Canada, and you wouldn't want your Government's secrets to leak out through us, eh?
You've obviously never examined counter-insurgency situations, nor history. Are you aware, for instance, that the Bolsheviks were seriously outnumbered by the White forces at the start of their insurrection? That the Maoists had to deal with a significantly larger and well-funded, but insanely corrupt (True. Chiang Kai-Shek and a certain Tong/Triad) Kuomintang? And so forth.
Have you studied the ACW? The Confederacy had remarkably poor access to industry, armaments, currency and so forth. They were *seriously* outmatched in just about every regard except generalship (for much of the war) and morale (for the early part). Were the population to rebel against the Gov't en masse here, however, it would be the citizens that have the advantages over population, territory, and production; the US has difficulty with situations where the people oppose them partly because they seemingly have lacked the stomach for such, ever since the conquest of the Philippines post-Spanish-American War (where the US *was* utterly ruthless against the rebels, largely imitating the Spanish pre-war tactics in Cuba).
And, according to your logic, the Finnish would have been routed by the Soviet Red Army within, oh, days, and the Warsaw Ghetto (one of the *most* overmatched situations in history...) wouldn't have held out an hour. And so forth. Insurgency situations are dramatically different from open-battlefield confrontations from the ACW era, as you'd know if you studied history a whit.
Perhaps it's a silly point, but it would seem less dangerous (from the shooter's POV) to have a school shooting in a suburban district which is unused to such and has low security measures, than in city schools experienced with gang violence. That, and it's far less likely that any students will be able to fire back...
Suburban schools haven't taken nearly as many safety measures, in general, and have less experience with doing so. If, say, I went mucker, it'd be a lot safer for me to do so in an upscale New England suburb, than in Chicago, or Dallas.
Hmmm. But many US schools offer fairly insane levels of scholarships based on either need or merit. I'm not sure what, say, the *average* net cost is here, or how many people pay full-rate...
The other thing is, in the US, private schools aren't being subsidized that much by taxes, in constrast to the directly research-related funding that they do tend to get. What happens if you figure the Canadian gov't contribution to it? Is it still more efficient than ours, and if so, are there any obvious reasons why?
True. I've seen panhandlers work the same street, for hours and hours, spending time on their rear when literally in LOS of places with "help wanted" signs -- week after week after week.
'sides, ANY system is going to hose people because of conflicting values.
* People should get what they EARN. * People should get what they NEED. * People should do what they CAN.
It's impossible in practice to balance these. If you reward everybody according to how much they do and what the market feels they're worth, some people aren't going to measure up. Judging from the US, that's a fact.
If you reward people according to what they need, and go redistribution-of-wealth, a) "need" is incredibly nebulous, b) people are going to work far less efficiently. You'll also have to start arbitrarily denying "wants". That's also borne out by history. Witness, say, the effects of Stalinism and Maoism.
To force people to do what they can, you have to pay them accordingly -- and not reward them for simply existing.
Please, don't use automatic log clearing. *BAD* idea if you'd like to know how crackers got into a system, or even tried to.
Some would rather have a box go down, but be able to analyze the results, than let a cracker attack it and then be able to hide the results even if he failed to get full admin rights.
Because you don't have infinite storage: the best you could possibly do is probably use a separate system, burning to write-once mass storage (separate and write-once to preserve integrity), and even then you'll run out of media. There is a fundamental compromise with any logging system.
You can either: * Let the machine continue to run when you're out of log space. This means that either you cull the old log, or preserve it but nothing further is logged until the space problem is resolved. If you choose the latter, a malicious cracker can attack your machine, and then flood it with event-causing occurrences to erase logs of the attack; if the former, he simply switches the order.
Either way, it is going to be possible for a malicious cracker to act in a way that is *not* logged, which means that you will have a far more difficult time preventing a repeat attack -- or possibly even detecting such. For many, this is unacceptable.
* Or, you can shut down the machine so no lamer/cracker can do further damage to it, and you are ensured the ability to analyze the logs.
Since you cannot prevent a full DoS (e.g. simple packet floods. If you block those alleged originating networks, then you've lost some service. That's why the rules don't count DoS attacks.) anyway, some security guidelines require that the machine be shut down instead.
With even the stock fingerd, you should be able to turn off the "finger @host" (namely, reject all requests that don't have a valid user name). That means that most telnettable user IDs would have to still be guessed.
I'm assuming that... * They blocked direct remote root logins. 'course. * The standard userids that don't ever log in, are blocked ('*'), and have non-valid shells. * They didn't leave 'round a joke UID (like 'haX0r') just for the heck of it.:-)
In addition, even with a normal uid, they could have implemented access controls that forbid su-ing except for those in the wheel group, and then relegated those logins to only console. Or used S/Key, or other fun.
Probably not an effective attack other than its DoS aspects.
1. Most are -- there's little reason for the press to cover the saner folks all the time. "If it bleeds, it leads..."
2. 'coz they figured that most people had a sense of humor?
3. Detergents exist. It's a perfectly normal thing for a liquid to remove a *normal* stain if that's what it's advertised to do; if it's some weird chemical that was synthesized to bond with the shirt somehow, then no. E-mail programs also exist; now, if it claimed to be able to read your mail 5s after original transmission even if you were out near Bernard's Star, no. Shoes that protect your feet from stubbing or light objects falling on them, yes; shoes that save your feet if a wacko shoots them w/ a.50-cal anti-tank rifle, no.
Corporate giveaways that deterministically reward unlimited numbers of civvies with aircraft not available to them for far less than their value don't, but it's well established for random clothing items and miscellanous trinkets to be sold at a slight premium. There's an important difference.
4. Ads generally aren't good places for information, especially 30s spots. And heaven help us if humor flees to just the comics.
Hmmmm. Charity? How does one choose which? (Matching funds?)
Random ideas -- * Let the funds go directly to the local/state/or Federal treasury, with one provo: if their exists a government debt, it *must* go towards reducing it.
* Or, allow a reduction in the punitive-damage award if the amount is clearly applied to solving whatever problem existed. In this case, this might be finding a way to build safer high-temperature beverage containers, or perhaps working with auto manufacturers to encourage cup-holders, or anything like that. Far more difficult, because now somebody has to rule on relevance.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks to me like he's just soliciting fiscally free donated code and avoiding the cost of hiring proggers. He's not claiming to make the site 'Open Source'; just intending to reap what's sown by people inclined to give away their work...
It's a tad bizarre that he requests the names of employers.
Arguably, the Internet can be used as a tool for the dissemination of propaganda -- including outright lies. This is at least partly due to
* The availability of free Web hosting.
* The difficulty of confirming the identity and credentials of 'net publishers/speakers.
* The occasional strange credulity of people...
An organized effort by any reasonably large group, be it a fringe, partisan group of people out to "get" somebody; or an activist group that does not bother with checking its "facts" can rapidly evangelize a cause with nonsense -- such as blatantly questionable statistics, out-of-context quotes, and so forth.
Is there any reason that the people *should* view the 'Net as a medium for information and activism, given all this? That is, why -- and how -- should people write or listen?
...as does pointer aliasing, doesn't it? (e.g. if, say, array2 actually pointed inside array1...).
Perhaps that's a point in favor of explicit hints to the compiler; in, say, straight C, if both array1 and array2 are pointer types, there's not a clear guarantee from the snippet that the assignments are all independent. As you noted, ditto for C++ operator overloading, too.
Hmmm. Are there limits? I've never played _Fallout_...
I did have some *powerful* _Wasteland_ characters, which was also skill-based. Notably, WL prevented players from being too god-like by limiting the number of skills one could have; there came a point where even if you had free skill points, you couldn't use 'em. That, plus making the end base *nasty*...
A mage, arguably, might need to gesture, fiddle with components, or otherwise focus. In addition, there's the game balance reasons; in AD&D, high-level mages become *really* powerful under certain conditions (i.e. not having used up all their spells/item. GoI + protection from normal missiles + fire shield + haste self is a nifty combination), while, say, single-classed thieves don't gain that much.
I was mostly thinking that ya don't go around gunning people down in AD&D... there's not that much ranting about Satanism these days, as there is 'bout armed juvvies. {shrug}
Hmmm. "Paranoia" has a FAST combat system (no HP, even...), it's a lot of fun (in a twisted way...), and heck -- the player's aren't supposed to even be burdened by knowing the rules (most of which are classified above their security clearance.) :-)
It is *not* a game, however, that easily allows attachment to one's character, nor promotes long campaigns full of detailed advancement, growth and development. Heh. But it can be great fun.
I'd agree *if* the hypothetical firearms owners were well-trained in their maintenance and usage. Even, say, for an armed guard walking the beat in a school (in constrast to arming untrained civvies), such as there actually was at Columbine, to be able to take down one or two shooters in an area full of panicking people you _don't_ want to shoot might be beyond many.
It'd also have to be carried and readily accessible, most likely; a weapon in a locked desk is useless if the owner is prevented from approaching it.
Hmmmm. Anybody know how whether and how much training is required before (guess this would mostly be a per-state thing...) permits are granted?
...so, like "Call of Cthulhu", "Shadowrun", or "GURPS"? Dunno if there've been many CRPGs (online or not) based on 'em or similar systems.
AD&D is probably the most familiar model to many, and thus would draw in the most potential customers. It's also clearly fantasy, which avoids certain political issues regarding games in contemporary settings...
No monthly fee? The ability for any ol' homey to set up a server? DM access? Dev for multiple platforms?
;-)
Hm. Sounds like the 3rd ed. changed a bit, 'tho, from the rules I'm used to. Interesting; dunno if that's good or bad, 'tho.
The fact that they've considered how to balance characters 'tween, say, Monty Haul games and more stingy modules is a positive sign.
If only they allowed players to control monsters for a lark... it might be amusing to compete, say, as Trolls to see how many PCs one can eat within a given time.
Hmmm. At least that makes more sense than, oh, bright, cheery, bold color schemes given the subject matter...
{shrug} The onus is on the prosecutors to prove a case, right? AS an innocent man, I'd have a damn good chance of beating such a case -- particularly if I waived my right to a jury trial, methinks; went straight to trial ASAP; and show that the evidence is completely insufficient to prove trading. Even if I ran a 'crackable' box and that occured, the obvious point would be that such is possible on any 'crackable' box and thus the evidence in no way is incontrovertible. They'd have to be able to demonstrate a clear history of such transactions with evidence that cannot be trivially impeached -- like phone logs, correlating my physical location with logins, and so forth. They'd also have to explain the apparent inconsistency with having a decent amount of legitimate, purchased software...
That's not going to happen.
That sort of evidence *does* nail Mitnick to the wall, however; it's not like the case against him is bogus. He can have his lawyers try to delay as much as he wants, but tough.
True. We're a violent people, although it's unclear why -- the statistics just show we are. {shrug}
'suppose the issue boils down to:
* Do the people trust the Government, and believe that this will continue?
* If that trust will be violated, will the people be able to do anything 'bout it -- and will arms hurt or help?
* Is it feasible to confiscate arms and keep them in the hands of police/military?
Depending on the answers to those questions, one may argue completely differently. I'd have to say that in the case of the US, #3 is right out (law enforcement would have to sweep the nation, and Customs would have to be *really* tight); #1 is a 'yes' for many today, but a distinct 'no' from the Founding Fathers; and #2 is questionable, in that it'd all end up a mess. Eh.
Ahhhh, Feinstein. The same Senator who appeared lately on... _Dateline_, was it? defending her role in the "Assault Weapons ban" that was based on specific features (such as flash suppressors, folding stock, etc), and who labelled every attempt to redesign thusly-banned weapons to comply as "craven".
But you'll find plenty of anti-drug people on both sides of the aisle, methinks. Remember the Reagan years, and the "Just Say No" campaign?
Prisons ain't cheap. "Cheap prison labour" ain't gonna happen in the US, unless they go Gulag-style or something like that. Plenty of white folks in jail for drug violations, also...
Money might be involved in that cocaine and heroin dealers tend to contribute less than alcohol concerns, 'tho -- alcohol also benefits from the fact that we tried already to ban it and failed, miserably.
There's a strong contingent of people who come from the "it's bad for you, it's bad for society, ergo it's now illegal" school. That, and inertia, are probably among the biggest reasons why the "drug war" is continuing. That, and the fact that other countries tend to ask the US for help in this regard.
Perhaps
* If allowed to stand, such would set precedents that would make further bizarre laws easier to pass.
* The sponsors of the bills think that they'll get 'em votes, particularly given that there's a strange level of "for-the-children"-is going on right now.
* Ending the "war on drugs" would be a serious admission of either the impossibility of prohibition, or possibly the wrongheadedness of trying. {shrug}
Hmmm. Governments do benefit from the forfeiture laws, 'tho, as do people who buy off the confiscated property...
Dunno. Maybe they fear people spying on them, if the agency lacks the relative notoriety or alleged ferocity of others. :-) 'sides, we probably spy on Canada, and you wouldn't want your Government's secrets to leak out through us, eh?
You've obviously never examined counter-insurgency situations, nor history. Are you aware, for instance, that the Bolsheviks were seriously outnumbered by the White forces at the start of their insurrection? That the Maoists had to deal with a significantly larger and well-funded, but insanely corrupt (True. Chiang Kai-Shek and a certain Tong/Triad) Kuomintang? And so forth.
Have you studied the ACW? The Confederacy had remarkably poor access to industry, armaments, currency and so forth. They were *seriously* outmatched in just about every regard except generalship (for much of the war) and morale (for the early part). Were the population to rebel against the Gov't en masse here, however, it would be the citizens that have the advantages over population, territory, and production; the US has difficulty with situations where the people oppose them partly because they seemingly have lacked the stomach for such, ever since the conquest of the Philippines post-Spanish-American War (where the US *was* utterly ruthless against the rebels, largely imitating the Spanish pre-war tactics in Cuba).
And, according to your logic, the Finnish would have been routed by the Soviet Red Army within, oh, days, and the Warsaw Ghetto (one of the *most* overmatched situations in history...) wouldn't have held out an hour. And so forth. Insurgency situations are dramatically different from open-battlefield confrontations from the ACW era, as you'd know if you studied history a whit.
Perhaps it's a silly point, but it would seem less dangerous (from the shooter's POV) to have a school shooting in a suburban district which is unused to such and has low security measures, than in city schools experienced with gang violence. That, and it's far less likely that any students will be able to fire back...
Suburban schools haven't taken nearly as many safety measures, in general, and have less experience with doing so. If, say, I went mucker, it'd be a lot safer for me to do so in an upscale New England suburb, than in Chicago, or Dallas.
Hmmm. But many US schools offer fairly insane levels of scholarships based on either need or merit. I'm not sure what, say, the *average* net cost is here, or how many people pay full-rate...
The other thing is, in the US, private schools aren't being subsidized that much by taxes, in constrast to the directly research-related funding that they do tend to get. What happens if you figure the Canadian gov't contribution to it? Is it still more efficient than ours, and if so, are there any obvious reasons why?
True. I've seen panhandlers work the same street, for hours and hours, spending time on their rear when literally in LOS of places with "help wanted" signs -- week after week after week.
'sides, ANY system is going to hose people because of conflicting values.
* People should get what they EARN.
* People should get what they NEED.
* People should do what they CAN.
It's impossible in practice to balance these. If you reward everybody according to how much they do and what the market feels they're worth, some people aren't going to measure up. Judging from the US, that's a fact.
If you reward people according to what they need, and go redistribution-of-wealth, a) "need" is incredibly nebulous, b) people are going to work far less efficiently. You'll also have to start arbitrarily denying "wants". That's also borne out by history. Witness, say, the effects of Stalinism and Maoism.
To force people to do what they can, you have to pay them accordingly -- and not reward them for simply existing.
Fundamentally, somebody's going to get the shaft.
Please, don't use automatic log clearing. *BAD* idea if you'd like to know how crackers got into a system, or even tried to.
Some would rather have a box go down, but be able to analyze the results, than let a cracker attack it and then be able to hide the results even if he failed to get full admin rights.
Because you don't have infinite storage: the best you could possibly do is probably use a separate system, burning to write-once mass storage (separate and write-once to preserve integrity), and even then you'll run out of media. There is a fundamental compromise with any logging system.
You can either:
* Let the machine continue to run when you're out of log space. This means that either you cull the old log, or preserve it but nothing further is logged until the space problem is resolved. If you choose the latter, a malicious cracker can attack your machine, and then flood it with event-causing occurrences to erase logs of the attack; if the former, he simply switches the order.
Either way, it is going to be possible for a malicious cracker to act in a way that is *not* logged, which means that you will have a far more difficult time preventing a repeat attack -- or possibly even detecting such. For many, this is unacceptable.
* Or, you can shut down the machine so no lamer/cracker can do further damage to it, and you are ensured the ability to analyze the logs.
Since you cannot prevent a full DoS (e.g. simple packet floods. If you block those alleged originating networks, then you've lost some service. That's why the rules don't count DoS attacks.) anyway, some security guidelines require that the machine be shut down instead.
With even the stock fingerd, you should be able to turn off the "finger @host" (namely, reject all requests that don't have a valid user name). That means that most telnettable user IDs would have to still be guessed.
:-)
I'm assuming that...
* They blocked direct remote root logins. 'course.
* The standard userids that don't ever log in, are blocked ('*'), and have non-valid shells.
* They didn't leave 'round a joke UID (like 'haX0r') just for the heck of it.
In addition, even with a normal uid, they could have implemented access controls that forbid su-ing except for those in the wheel group, and then relegated those logins to only console. Or used S/Key, or other fun.
Probably not an effective attack other than its DoS aspects.
1. Most are -- there's little reason for the press to cover the saner folks all the time. "If it bleeds, it leads..."
.50-cal anti-tank rifle, no.
2. 'coz they figured that most people had a sense of humor?
3. Detergents exist. It's a perfectly normal thing for a liquid to remove a *normal* stain if that's what it's advertised to do; if it's some weird chemical that was synthesized to bond with the shirt somehow, then no. E-mail programs also exist; now, if it claimed to be able to read your mail 5s after original transmission even if you were out near Bernard's Star, no. Shoes that protect your feet from stubbing or light objects falling on them, yes; shoes that save your feet if a wacko shoots them w/ a
Corporate giveaways that deterministically reward unlimited numbers of civvies with aircraft not available to them for far less than their value don't, but it's well established for random clothing items and miscellanous trinkets to be sold at a slight premium. There's an important difference.
4. Ads generally aren't good places for information, especially 30s spots. And heaven help us if humor flees to just the comics.
Hmmmm. Charity? How does one choose which? (Matching funds?)
Random ideas --
* Let the funds go directly to the local/state/or Federal treasury, with one provo: if their exists a government debt, it *must* go towards reducing it.
* Or, allow a reduction in the punitive-damage award if the amount is clearly applied to solving whatever problem existed. In this case, this might be finding a way to build safer high-temperature beverage containers, or perhaps working with auto manufacturers to encourage cup-holders, or anything like that. Far more difficult, because now somebody has to rule on relevance.