Start forwarding complaints to their postmasters, registrars, and fun folks like, say, the US Postal Inspector Service (Certain of those subject lines are *strongly* suggestive of pyramid schemes and other forms of fraud...) at fraud@uspis.gov.
If you're an antichrist, you probably should be able to summon your daemonic legions to/. -- at least some of them will eventually gain moderator privileges in all likelihood, and then they can moderate you up. The immortality ring will give you more time to spend on this plan.
Don't foget the hormones as well. The "boy band" approach appears to have worked that angle at least since the Beatles, and individual handsome / beautiful singers (and politicians...) have benefited from their influences as well. The awful *shrieking* that occurs when, say, Leno invites some band like N'Sync (shudder) is probably a symptom.
Actually, you could probably propose a motion of your own. Send in a shareholder proposal. There are activists who, rather than simply whining, buy a share and put together decently-written proposals in the hopes of convincing other shareholders.
I've seen quite a few shareholder proposals -- particularly ones related to GM foods and all. They get published along with the annual reports and are available for voting. Of course, they're often completely devoid of citations, sound genetics or hard facts...
...which is their privilege, is it not? Even if online distribution were going to be massively profitable, you can't *force* the labels to do it. It's their right to not branch into other distribution channels as long as it's their IP, regardless of whether it's a wise decision.
If it's a work for hire, he probably doesn't own the intellectual property. And he probably should read their intellectual property policy -- they almost certainly have one, and it may even include anything significant developed using their resources.
And are you fine waiting for fixes for features that don't exactly work? For instance, can StarOffice actually load a PowerPoint presentation without massive font and style corruption, or is it still broken?
Sub-saharan Africa was indeed not only different... but primitive, in terms of both technology AND social development. For instance, such concepts as public schools, educating *both* men and women, agriculture, codes of law, and so forth were significantly less prevalent, if in existence at all. The fact that tribal warfare is *still* a very significant problem on that continent speaks volumes about their societies.
A CNN article says that the state will not only collect rather hefty fees annual licensing fees, but also 6% of the gross income.
For comparison, if memory serves the House percentage on a standard 38-number roulette wheel is only 5.26% on the "best" bet (from the bettor's point of view), betting on a single number at 35:1 odds. A slot machine -- hrm, some are around 11% and probably upwards.
Not to mention that the definition may be unclear.
If I'm in a resident of one state, but currently away on a trip in another, whose law applies? Would the strictest rule apply -- and more importantly, how would the Nevadans know my *physical* location without, say, a court order for ISP logs?
Interstate gambling would be interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure that the Feds believe they have jurisdiction over this, and they could make a strong case because gambling *is* commerce. And for now, the Feds are saying "no" to the whole shebang.
Well, sometimes you don't want a tank or a Jeep, say. A tank can give the wrong impression if you're trying to be low-key -- either for PR reasons, where a tank could be interpreted as a show of power, or because an American tank in certain places would be an obvious target. And they're not designed for transporting more people, so if you want to do a civillian rescue, they're very suboptimal.
Jeeps can go more places than tanks, and probably don't piss off the locals quite as much if they're not yet seething, but they're incredibly vulnerable to small-arms fire since they're so open. Might have been helpful in, say, Mogadishu (sp?) or Sarajevo.
So this may make a good compromise between light protection and lower profile. Good, say, for rescues, for covert ops, light escort missions and so forth. But you clearly wouldn't put it up against T-72s on an open field...
Well, you'd need one hell of a lot of steel plate to stop a land mine, remote-controlled explosive, limpet mine or similar device, wouldn't you? Given that mines can be dangerous to main battle tanks, ISTR... so probably they figured that it wasn't worth it.
The ballistic protection should help against small-arms fire. They're not trying to design something that can absorb an antitank missile -- just light protection. Which makes sense for civillians, such as those worried about being kidnapping targets.
A kidnapper probably wouldn't use a rocket or a mine since he needs the victim alive (or, at least, present the impression that the victim is still alive)... but he might well use somebody to shoot the driver, or so forth.
Well, yes. Don't some states have a lower minimum age for bartending than for drinking?
Re:Here's how you fix the problem of bad laws....
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
Hrm. I'm not sure that's a good idea -- it can be possible for two rational people to disagree on the exact meaning of a clause. Interpretations have changed with time, after all, and some parts of the Constitution are a bit vague.
On the other hand, it'd be a public service for people to track what bills have been struck down for Constitutional grounds, and who pushed for them. Some may have a record of doing such, but it's really up to the voters to care.
It's also possible that the legislators genuinely feel bad if they're not doing *something* about it -- even if the steps they propose aren't perfect. It can be difficult to admit to oneself that one does NOT know how to solve a problem.
Re:Notice that we are saying "in public places"
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
Hrm. Driving is something that many kids are eager to get to (or so they say -- they aren't looking at insurance and auto maintenance bills...), while killing games fundamentally deal with power. Shooters have an extremely simple interface (aiming, reloading, possibly a button for using special weapons), while fighting games encourage kids to play a LOT in order to find and memorize hordes of combinations. Plus, the fact that adults sometimes try to discourage that type of game may increase the lure...
Perhaps those give 'em a greater draw than, say, two-person Tetris variants?
*shrug* Would you prefer bombs or fire? It's only a matter of time before a student resorts to either bombs (that actually work...) or fire plus, say, blocking emergency exits.
In many states, it's illegal for minors to have handguns -- some areas, such as the halcyon, crime-free city of Washington, D.C. even ban them from adults, thus preventing gang violence and random thuggery <snort>. But really, even if minors *and* adults were forbidden access to firearms, and current databases were used to confiscate them (for instance, Pennsylvania, or at least parts of it (can't recall), tracks *purchases*. They claim that it is legal because it doesn't track try to *ownership* of all firearms, such as the ones bought before they started doing this), many would be missed and still ready for use. So it's a little late for a ban.
You might also consider target vulnerability. Schools are obvious targets for angry teens (and in Israel, for that matter, Palestinian terrorists -- but that's another troll. Interested readers might want to check into what precautions they take on, say, field trips -- my understanding is that they pack some decent firepower, out of necessity.) -- they represent authority; they're full of unarmed, untrained targets against whom they may bear personal grudges; they're easily accessible; and they're practically guaranteed national or international news coverage. Students generally don't shoot up police stations, military bases, or airports, for the obvious reasons. A school is also often vulnerable to smuggling in weapons due to numerous windows and entrances, et al.
And what are students taught? They're sometimes even told to hide in the far corners of a room with the lights off and door closed. Which is all fine and good if you're not noticed, but if you ARE, you're not going to be able to do much except wait to be shot. One thinks you'd get better odds with an ambush right by the door -- and in a typical classroom, there are probably a variety of objects suitable for melee weapons if need be. Others may be drilled to flee via *specific* exits, which may just set them up for ambushes.
So what the situation boils down to is people that know that they may be specifically targetted, but are in a bad position to do anything about it. They may be instructed to act in ways that would appear to increase the danger from such incidents. They are generally restricted from arming themselves due to fear (with some justification; arming teachers without training them safe practices in both storage and use would probably be stupid...). And they are dealing with people who may be acting completely irrationally, and thus you can't expect to remove *all* their motivations for lashing out.
So it's with high probability an unsolvable problem if one looks for a *complete* solution. Cracking down on bullying; giving a *reason* to respect and trust authorities, including dealing with (IOW, terminating with prejudice) the ones that prove their own incompetence or unacceptable degrees of callousness; establishing sane response procedures (like encouraging assessment of a situation -- heroism and cowardice both have their place); some reasonable precautions (it's not particularly useful to have a pass-thru doorway metal detector if a firearm and ammo could readily be smuggled in through a window or another route); and perhaps proactive checking (if a student's behavior changes radically, it may be worth noting; threats, et al, may be grounds for checking with the folks... and so forth) -- these may all *help*.
But parents who ask for reassurances of *complete* safety are asking for the impossible.
That industry also has a bad reputation for credit card fraud, overcharging, and so forth. They're probably gambling that not too many people would want to make a fuss and contest the charges, and for those that do, they can always send paper checks with embarrassing names/letterhead to decrease the probability that the complainer is willing to *deposit* it...
It's not entirely a coincidence. _Barbarossa_ wasn't a particularly great idea, nor was its execution; and the diversion of large amounts of rail transport to moving around prisoners probably didn't help the wartime logistics effort any.
As long as there's good oversight. The NSA's policies may be good, but that doesn't mean that none of its employees ever succumb to temptation and abuse its power. And when it does happen, it would be nice to know that a) somebody notices, and b) there are actual consequences to deter further abuse.
A shotgun approach (the rumored capabilities of Echelon) could
a) tip you off about interesting intel targets that you might not otherwise be aware of, and
b) tip you off about leaks if a target whom you're already surveilling uses a method not covered by existing wiretaps, infiltration et al, but is by Ech.
FWIW, some datacenters might be very, very difficult to infiltrate. Some organizations, or even entire regimes, might be quite paranoid.
Not Echelon -- a satellite control system, if memory serves. NRO likes to be constantly receiving and processing data from those eyes in the sky... probably a bit too much emphasis on them compared to HUMINT.
Slashdot Mirror
Start forwarding complaints to their postmasters, registrars, and fun folks like, say, the US Postal Inspector Service (Certain of those subject lines are *strongly* suggestive of pyramid schemes and other forms of fraud...) at fraud@uspis.gov.
If you're an antichrist, you probably should be able to summon your daemonic legions to /. -- at least some of them will eventually gain moderator privileges in all likelihood, and then they can moderate you up. The immortality ring will give you more time to spend on this plan.
:)
Don't foget the hormones as well. The "boy band" approach appears to have worked that angle at least since the Beatles, and individual handsome / beautiful singers (and politicians...) have benefited from their influences as well. The awful *shrieking* that occurs when, say, Leno invites some band like N'Sync (shudder) is probably a symptom.
Actually, you could probably propose a motion of your own. Send in a shareholder proposal. There are activists who, rather than simply whining, buy a share and put together decently-written proposals in the hopes of convincing other shareholders.
I've seen quite a few shareholder proposals -- particularly ones related to GM foods and all. They get published along with the annual reports and are available for voting. Of course, they're often completely devoid of citations, sound genetics or hard facts...
If you can't get a thousand people out of, say, a few hundred thousand, to agree with you, then you probably need better ideas...
...which is their privilege, is it not? Even if online distribution were going to be massively profitable, you can't *force* the labels to do it. It's their right to not branch into other distribution channels as long as it's their IP, regardless of whether it's a wise decision.
If it's a work for hire, he probably doesn't own the intellectual property. And he probably should read their intellectual property policy -- they almost certainly have one, and it may even include anything significant developed using their resources.
Is your time free?
Is your bandwidth free?
And are you fine waiting for fixes for features that don't exactly work? For instance, can StarOffice actually load a PowerPoint presentation without massive font and style corruption, or is it still broken?
Sub-saharan Africa was indeed not only different... but primitive, in terms of both technology AND social development. For instance, such concepts as public schools, educating *both* men and women, agriculture, codes of law, and so forth were significantly less prevalent, if in existence at all. The fact that tribal warfare is *still* a very significant problem on that continent speaks volumes about their societies.
A CNN article says that the state will not only collect rather hefty fees annual licensing fees, but also 6% of the gross income.
For comparison, if memory serves the House percentage on a standard 38-number roulette wheel is only 5.26% on the "best" bet (from the bettor's point of view), betting on a single number at 35:1 odds. A slot machine -- hrm, some are around 11% and probably upwards.
Not to mention that the definition may be unclear.
If I'm in a resident of one state, but currently away on a trip in another, whose law applies? Would the strictest rule apply -- and more importantly, how would the Nevadans know my *physical* location without, say, a court order for ISP logs?
Interstate gambling would be interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure that the Feds believe they have jurisdiction over this, and they could make a strong case because gambling *is* commerce. And for now, the Feds are saying "no" to the whole shebang.
So that when they mutate, return, and try to replace us with custom pods, they'll be easier to identify. Most of we *real* people don't fluoresce...
Well, sometimes you don't want a tank or a Jeep, say. A tank can give the wrong impression if you're trying to be low-key -- either for PR reasons, where a tank could be interpreted as a show of power, or because an American tank in certain places would be an obvious target. And they're not designed for transporting more people, so if you want to do a civillian rescue, they're very suboptimal.
Jeeps can go more places than tanks, and probably don't piss off the locals quite as much if they're not yet seething, but they're incredibly vulnerable to small-arms fire since they're so open. Might have been helpful in, say, Mogadishu (sp?) or Sarajevo.
So this may make a good compromise between light protection and lower profile. Good, say, for rescues, for covert ops, light escort missions and so forth. But you clearly wouldn't put it up against T-72s on an open field...
...but is it remote-controllable via an intuitive touch-pad?
Well, you'd need one hell of a lot of steel plate to stop a land mine, remote-controlled explosive, limpet mine or similar device, wouldn't you? Given that mines can be dangerous to main battle tanks, ISTR... so probably they figured that it wasn't worth it.
The ballistic protection should help against small-arms fire. They're not trying to design something that can absorb an antitank missile -- just light protection. Which makes sense for civillians, such as those worried about being kidnapping targets.
A kidnapper probably wouldn't use a rocket or a mine since he needs the victim alive (or, at least, present the impression that the victim is still alive)... but he might well use somebody to shoot the driver, or so forth.
Well, yes. Don't some states have a lower minimum age for bartending than for drinking?
Hrm. I'm not sure that's a good idea -- it can be possible for two rational people to disagree on the exact meaning of a clause. Interpretations have changed with time, after all, and some parts of the Constitution are a bit vague.
On the other hand, it'd be a public service for people to track what bills have been struck down for Constitutional grounds, and who pushed for them. Some may have a record of doing such, but it's really up to the voters to care.
It's also possible that the legislators genuinely feel bad if they're not doing *something* about it -- even if the steps they propose aren't perfect. It can be difficult to admit to oneself that one does NOT know how to solve a problem.
Hrm. Driving is something that many kids are eager to get to (or so they say -- they aren't looking at insurance and auto maintenance bills...), while killing games fundamentally deal with power. Shooters have an extremely simple interface (aiming, reloading, possibly a button for using special weapons), while fighting games encourage kids to play a LOT in order to find and memorize hordes of combinations. Plus, the fact that adults sometimes try to discourage that type of game may increase the lure...
Perhaps those give 'em a greater draw than, say, two-person Tetris variants?
*shrug* Would you prefer bombs or fire? It's only a matter of time before a student resorts to either bombs (that actually work...) or fire plus, say, blocking emergency exits.
In many states, it's illegal for minors to have handguns -- some areas, such as the halcyon, crime-free city of Washington, D.C. even ban them from adults, thus preventing gang violence and random thuggery <snort>. But really, even if minors *and* adults were forbidden access to firearms, and current databases were used to confiscate them (for instance, Pennsylvania, or at least parts of it (can't recall), tracks *purchases*. They claim that it is legal because it doesn't track try to *ownership* of all firearms, such as the ones bought before they started doing this), many would be missed and still ready for use. So it's a little late for a ban.
You might also consider target vulnerability. Schools are obvious targets for angry teens (and in Israel, for that matter, Palestinian terrorists -- but that's another troll. Interested readers might want to check into what precautions they take on, say, field trips -- my understanding is that they pack some decent firepower, out of necessity.) -- they represent authority; they're full of unarmed, untrained targets against whom they may bear personal grudges; they're easily accessible; and they're practically guaranteed national or international news coverage. Students generally don't shoot up police stations, military bases, or airports, for the obvious reasons. A school is also often vulnerable to smuggling in weapons due to numerous windows and entrances, et al.
And what are students taught? They're sometimes even told to hide in the far corners of a room with the lights off and door closed. Which is all fine and good if you're not noticed, but if you ARE, you're not going to be able to do much except wait to be shot. One thinks you'd get better odds with an ambush right by the door -- and in a typical classroom, there are probably a variety of objects suitable for melee weapons if need be. Others may be drilled to flee via *specific* exits, which may just set them up for ambushes.
So what the situation boils down to is people that know that they may be specifically targetted, but are in a bad position to do anything about it. They may be instructed to act in ways that would appear to increase the danger from such incidents. They are generally restricted from arming themselves due to fear (with some justification; arming teachers without training them safe practices in both storage and use would probably be stupid...). And they are dealing with people who may be acting completely irrationally, and thus you can't expect to remove *all* their motivations for lashing out.
So it's with high probability an unsolvable problem if one looks for a *complete* solution. Cracking down on bullying; giving a *reason* to respect and trust authorities, including dealing with (IOW, terminating with prejudice) the ones that prove their own incompetence or unacceptable degrees of callousness; establishing sane response procedures (like encouraging assessment of a situation -- heroism and cowardice both have their place); some reasonable precautions (it's not particularly useful to have a pass-thru doorway metal detector if a firearm and ammo could readily be smuggled in through a window or another route); and perhaps proactive checking (if a student's behavior changes radically, it may be worth noting; threats, et al, may be grounds for checking with the folks... and so forth) -- these may all *help*.
But parents who ask for reassurances of *complete* safety are asking for the impossible.
That industry also has a bad reputation for credit card fraud, overcharging, and so forth. They're probably gambling that not too many people would want to make a fuss and contest the charges, and for those that do, they can always send paper checks with embarrassing names/letterhead to decrease the probability that the complainer is willing to *deposit* it...
It's not entirely a coincidence. _Barbarossa_ wasn't a particularly great idea, nor was its execution; and the diversion of large amounts of rail transport to moving around prisoners probably didn't help the wartime logistics effort any.
As long as there's good oversight. The NSA's policies may be good, but that doesn't mean that none of its employees ever succumb to temptation and abuse its power. And when it does happen, it would be nice to know that a) somebody notices, and b) there are actual consequences to deter further abuse.
Why not both, given the resources?
A shotgun approach (the rumored capabilities of Echelon) could
a) tip you off about interesting intel targets that you might not otherwise be aware of, and
b) tip you off about leaks if a target whom you're already surveilling uses a method not covered by existing wiretaps, infiltration et al, but is by Ech.
FWIW, some datacenters might be very, very difficult to infiltrate. Some organizations, or even entire regimes, might be quite paranoid.
Not Echelon -- a satellite control system, if memory serves. NRO likes to be constantly receiving and processing data from those eyes in the sky... probably a bit too much emphasis on them compared to HUMINT.