Mod this up. It is so damn true it should be written in stone somewhere and referenced on the test to any IT job.
I don't know how many times I have had to relax some restriction for a CEO or partner or owner because they were too special for it. Of course in the case of a partner or owner, it's their money and equipment so it's their choice all along, as for a CEO or CFO, it is sort of the same so I do/did whatever they wanted. I remember removing mail attachment size restrictions and even executable restrictions for one because he wanted to watch a video. Assuming it was a video concerning the job (he's in the hospitality business), I did so then shortly after we had massive intrusion alerts on the firewalls IDS. Turns out, the video was of a dog pissing while walking on it's front legs only and there was an.exe attached in the same email that did nothing I could find other then send a ping to a server registered in Russia. About 2 days later, we were bombarded with intrusion attempts from Chinese IP addresses.
Another instance was at a law firm, one of the partners demanded the ability to use AOL as their internet provider and to have access to all his music on the work computer via Itunes. I even set up a separate computer with a KVM and separate monitor in order to isolate his work stuff from his recreational stuff but that wasn't good enough. Then one day all out email was getting rejected, turns out he managed to install a root kit that was sending spam from his system through the AOL browser but from our registered domain. Took about 3 days to get out from under that and removed from all the black lists and his reaction was to be pissed off that he had to redownload all his music from Itunes because I wiped and reloaded his system.
There are numerous examples I can give but it's all the same. Someone in a high ranking position has an entitlement to more then others when it comes to securing a system and it eventually leads to problems that could have been completely avoided.
System file checker (sfc) is a means of this isn't it?
If so, I believe that has been around since windows 98se and is intended to be administered by MS online updates after the initial instal. It's not terribly useful for files outside of windows core files though. but it is a pretty good check after a virus or malware removal to at minimum ensure you can get into an uncompromised safe mode to search for infection remnants.
Tell me, when you smoke, do you do it in private / entirely away from non smokers, or do you do it in public where others may inhale the fumes?
I smoke anywhere I like outside of where I'm legally barred from doing so or the owner/proprietor has made a no smoking a policy. If someone doesn't like it, they can hang out around someone else.
I suffer from very bad asthma, and inhaling smoke can easily trigger an attack (not just tobacco smoke, other kinds of smoke too), this is not "some far off time" but rather a risk of serious and immediate health problems which i face every day.
I'm sorry to hear your health is not so good. I'm glad you have been able to take precautions and get around smokers enough that you can still be alive today and on the internet acting like a pompus ass the world should revolve around though. NO seriously, I am glad you are coping with your illness and are alive.
When it was legal to smoke in bars here, i would simply avoid any establishment which allowed smoking. Now people smoke in the street and i have to be very careful where i go, if someone walking infront of me is smoking it can often cause me severe breathing difficulties and i generally have to cross the street to walk past a bar now (since everyone stands outside to smoke).
Funny thing. A bar I used to go to a lot used to be always crowded. My home state passed a no indoor smoking in public law and the night when it took effect, the bar was about empty. I sat there drinking a beer and occasionally going out to the designated smoking area and when I came back in one of the time, I noticed a table of about 4 or 5 girls that had came in while I was out. They were talking about how great it was going to be that they didn't go home smelling of smoke, they didn't have to breath those stinky cigarette fumes any more. One of them proudly proclaimed that she helped working with the political group that pushed the smoking measure onto the ballot and how they got out the vote. One of them was busily working her phone trying to figure out where everyone was at- they had become accustomed to meeting their friends and the normal inflow of cheery people at this bar. Finally, I heard her say one person was at another bar where there was a roofed outdoor room and they could smoke on that patio. She said another was at another bar which decided to ignore the nonsmoking altogether. The bar tender and I stood there listening to all this thinking so that's where everyone was. Then all the sudden, these girls got up and decided to go to the other bars where people were still able to smoke. They even told us they were going to the other bars but might be back. So the bartender and I did what any decent respectable person would have done and talked about how fucking stupid those girls were.
So you get what you want and then all the sudden find out it creates more difficulties or situations you do not like. Now you are harping about the result of what you wanted as if you had nothing to do with any of it.
Also enjoying smoking is worse than addiction in many ways... Enjoying something which knowingly harms others is abhorrent, while enjoying something which you know is harmful basically amounts to self harm - and people get put in mental hospitals for this.
Says the guy who has medical problems and wants everyone around him to change rather then deal with his own life.
Here is the problem with people like you. You can avoid smokers, you can avoid people who drink, you can almost always avoid drug users, all you have to do is change your behavior and your wished can come true. But don't be surprised that when you want to change someone else' behavior that it comes back to bite you in ways you never intended. Don't be surprised when they become angry or even violent around you because that is raw simplistic natural tendencies.
Not true. I smoked for several years and quit for a little over a year and started smoking again. People like the smoke sensation entering their lungs, they like the relaxation afterwards and they like the way smoking steadies the hands and increases dexterity slightly. When I went back to smoking, I had absolutely no withdraw effects but I went back because I liked it. I only quit smoking (cold turkey) to get in a girls pants and she stuck around after I started back up despite being dead set against it when we first met.
I still smoke today because I enjoy it. If you do not smoke, I guess you will never understand but you have it all wrong. Sure there is addiction, but there is also other positives about smoking that people like and enjoy much the same as people who like to drink alcohol or toke on some weed or even do other drugs occasionally. All that can be done without addiction and is often done because people enjoy it.
You do realize that many people, while possibly addicted to smoking, continue to do so because they want to, they enjoy it. When you tell them to get help or to quit, you are actually telling them not to do something that is legal and they enjoy.
What I'm getting at is the anger is not from the conviction, it is likely from someone saying you can't do what you enjoy doing. Imagine if your family members constantly berated you over using the internet or whatever it is you enjoy because of hyped up claims about how bad it is for you despite no apparent signs of the damage until it some distant future. You would eventually get angry too.
If I say "I was confused by your deliberately misleading website and donated by mistake, then somebody told me about this scam and I cancelled", how do you prove I'm lying?
Even if someone would dig through access logs to show how my IP accessed this article before accessing that donation page - "Yeah, that was my (wife/brother/roommate/daughter) who told me about this later."
Well, it probably wouldn't even go that far because it clearly states "to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the monetary amounts you can select. You would likely have to claim the card use wasn't authorized in order to get the charge back in the first place.
The merchant can initiate the fraud complaint. The site clearly says help defeat $name and candidates like her/him right before entering the dollar amount. So the only way to make a charge back would be to claim your card use was not authorized by you.
What I think is interesting is that this is yet another Florida voter who doesn't pay attention to what he is doing and decided he did it wrongly after the fact.
The site clearly says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the denomination amounts and claims "Contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes." as well as "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.nrcc.org" at the bottom of the page. Although the paid for and non deductability clauses do somewhat blend into the background picture but it is obvious something is written there and if I was going to give CC information, I would see what it says before entering anything in. I would hope anyone else would do the same.
It should also be noted that the standard donate template seems to be the one used for the NRCC site. The only difference is it says help defeat a candidate and has their name and picture present.
I don't see this as anything nefarious but rather failing to read the details of what you are doing. Perhaps we should institute a requirement that all campaign websites use AOL so users won't get confused over the details staring them in the face when they try to throw money at someone?
lol.. That reminds me of a situation about 20 years ago or so. Locked the keys in the car in the middle of nowhere and hacked the door lock with a rock through the window.
The thing about script kiddies is that they don't need to know much because they use other people's scripts and efforts.
Here is a more illustrating example. Most people who have rooted android phones have no idea how to actually root a phone. Instead, they either (themselves or pay someone to do it) use scripts and procedures developed by others in order to gain root access and do as they please. So someone set up a side business rooting phones and to the average user, they look like a hacker. To someone who has some knowledge, they are script kiddies following someone else' directions- except they aren't acting maliciously. They generally have no idea or concept of exploiting a file in order to sneak something onto the operating system of a phone that would allow them to replace the boot code which will allow them to install a new operating system which is what I would consider hacking. But they can achieve the same goals using procedures and tools outlined by the hackers so they are script kiddies.
What does SLR do to Holland? You know, the country that is famous for building dikes and pumping tidal waters out so they can reclaim land and put it to use constructively?
The problem isn't necessarily with SLR, it's with this concept that no one can ever deal with it so we much oppress everyone in the name of science and heal Gaia right now.
So when asking What does 3 or 4 feet of SLR do to Huston, NOLA, Mobile, Miami or Tampa Bay, particularly when the next hurricane and storm surge comes along? The question is incomplete. You need to also ask if there is remediation along the way verses doing nothing in the hopes that increasing the costs of everything and making people suffer can somehow magically prevent the sea level rise. So what does a 3 to 4 feet rise in sea level mean for any area that has planned for the rise? If it happened tomorrow, major problems sure would exist. If it happened 85 years from now and society planned for it, normal problems associated with current hurricanes may only exist.
You need to re-read that link you provided. It blasts both the EPA & OSHA but not nearly as much as the WVDEP. The problems at EPA & OSHA can be partially attributed to cutbacks in federal spending and leaving vacant positions unfilled. It is tough for 1 inspector to fully inspect 7 states worth of industries.
Perhaps you should reread the post and do a little investigation yourself. MCHM is not even part of the Superfund chemical lists the EPA is mandating reportable quantities for. They do not have any jurisdiction over the chemical or the spill outside of cleanup. The article specifically mentions a couple of WV DEP investigators showed up and asked to tour the company. And yes, the article is critical of the EPA and OSHA, but the problem wasn't with either of them, the company didn't consider the spill a problem and failed to report it. Without the EPA or WVDEP inspecting the site, the problem would have remained the exact same- improperly maintained equipment and failing to report a spill- and the spill would have happened anyways.
Also, this spill, unlike the others, wasn't required to be inspected due to loopholes the industry saw was in place in state law.
What exact loopholes are those? Most companies do not get inspected simply because no one bothers inspecting them and no one is going to change that. No regulation imposed by the EPA can make anything different until the regulating agencies actually put the effort in. It would take an act of congress to get this and other chemicals listed under the EPA's jurisdiction. That is no loophole, that is simply law.
That is the trick of the feds. If a law is more restrictive in a state than federal law then the feds have to abide by the strictest interpretation of the law. WV's law in many ways is more strict than federal.
No, that is not any trick. WV's laws may have have been more strict but nothing prevented the EPA from inspecting to ensure minimum federal guidelines where applicable and reporting violations of WV's requirements. Furthermore, that sort of misses the entire issue as the company failed to report the spill which allowed the spill to breach the containment devices and flow into the river. If the company in question is not going to maintain their equipment and report spills, no amount of additional "We will make this regulation" is going to change that. It's like those idiots who think we need tougher penalties for people who murder someone in order to deter murdering someone when all it does is create a Circus when putting them on trial as you cannot give the death sentence more then once and no matter how many life terms someone is sentenced to, they can only serve one. The bottom line is a law wasn't followed, no agency caught it until it was too late, and employees as well as management turned a blind eye to the entire thing until the chemical surfaced in the drinking water.
The east coast will never be under water. At most, it will move inland a bit but the coast will always be the coastline.
On that note though, if the east coast is going to be relocates due to some preventable event, it will not happen for years and years so it will be relatively easy to deal with it over time. So the sea level is expected to climb something around 3 to 4 feet by the year 2100 if all goes as claimed. That's about 86 years from now.
So here is the question of the day, why can no levies, changes in building codes, flood plain maps, flood gates, or anything like that ever be implemented in that 86 year time span (roughly 2-3 generations of productive lifespans)? Even if Global Warming is a threat, why is the only way to deal with it seem to be cut emissions and oppress populations in order to protect the prime real estate of wealthy people instead of dealing with the problems as they are expected to be realized? Sure a flood wall might be an eyesore blocking your pristine view of the bay just like all those windmills that never got built would have. But why must the cost of energy and products become so outrageous that people cannot afford it in order to preserve that life style and views? It's not like we can stop or reverse global warming so why not deal with it and blame yourself if you get caught checking your mail in your underwear?
A simply google search for the claim would have produce more than enough support for it. But I'm betting you didn't even bother reading the post long enough to see what was written so doing something on your own is definitely out of the question. Amiright?
If you don't get one those you will get another. Cigarette smoking is a health hazard for the smoker and everyone around them.
I never said it wasn't. I said people are like you, inflating the evidence.
Using legal citations is NOT proof of ANY science because the standards of proof are completely different. And the Heartland Institute is just a "think tank" that is pretty much a propaganda machine for industry and corporate America. Tobacco.org is a front for the tobacco industry - more corporate propaganda and lies.
Ahh.. Yes, the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN defense. Well, I guess it is better then the chewbacca defense. No one who isn't a true believer is allowed to criticize anything about the situation else it is automatically fake, false, fraudulent, and anything else you can think of right?
I understand why you posted as an AC. I wouldn't want any online identity associated with a post like that either.
No, a proposal from the EPA is just a proposal it still has to get backed and signed before it even becomes a bill.
lol.. Do you really think that?
There are numerous areas in which the congress has given the EPA the power to create, implement, and enforce regulation that has the full effect of law without any congressional oversight or further congressional actions. I know it sounds contradictory to the US constitution which states all laws have to be passed by congress and then either signed by the president or the senate has to muster enough support to override a veto. But the fact of the matter is that congress passed a law allowing an agency to effectively create law (regulation) at it's own whim based on a set of criteria surrounding scientific evidence and industry situations.To make things worse, congress has allows the heads of the EPA to be controlled under the executive and the current president at any time appoints and directs the agency as he sees fit.
DO you always go off half cocked or does stupidity run in your family? I aks because what you mention completely misrepresents the situation without any basis to back it up.
The EPA is current hiding from congress data it claimed it used as the basis for regulation it enacted. This law will not prevent any regulation already enacted but will require the release of all data used in making that regulation. It will take a separate act of congress to undo anything that has already been created. All it will do it ensure that the data and procedures are public and that everyone has the ability to validate them. Some company failing to invalidate the studies or science will not stop anything from moving forward as long as anyone else can reproduce the findings.
If you think no one being able to reproduce the claims is limiting because Big oil, coal, and gas, and people like the Koch brothers might benefit and therefore evil, I suggest you reexamine what science actually is and ask why the government is making laws and regulations with the effect of laws based on science that isn't science. Just because someone or some entity you do not like might benefit from some conceivable outcome is not in and of itself sufficient cause to allow government to make regulation under the guise of science that has no noticeable basis in it. Should there be a basis, those people benefiting or not should be completely irrelevant to the regulation. That is the entire basis of a free country which equal protection of the law is key to the fundamental implementation of the law.
You sound as if you would prefere the EPA to not act in cases in which is needs to if it somehow benefited Big oil, coal, and gas or people like the Koch brothers and that is simply wrong.
I haven't heard anything about the EPA and cigars but nothing surprises me. As for kids and cigars, ever hear of a blunt? That is where kids (teens) hollow a cigar out and put weed in it to either conceal the smell of the pot while smoking or to enhance the buzz a bit by the tobacco nicotine.
And no, I don't really have a problem with either separate or combined. Neither is my cup of tea either but to each their own.
Are you suggesting that everyone in car crash dies?
Of course car crashes do not cause death- it is the injuries sustained from them. I have never heard of a car crash being listed as the cause of death on any death certificate or coroners report.
May I answer that it could be because the FUck Beta activism to save Slashdot has totally annoyed many of us and we do not care any more just like all the Ron Paultards turned what initially appeared to be an interesting candidate into a name you wanted to avoid like the plague every damned chance you could get.
So you are saying that you or science can mutate an ape into a human?
What you are missing here is that saying God did it would actually require God to do it again in order to be reproducible. If you are going to accept God did it as a conclusion for reproducibility, then evolutionism shares no fear as you just state the equivalent of I said so also.
I think the problem you might be experiencing here is not fear of creation but fear of pet causes not being cast into laws because the science behind it is more wishful thinking then facts based evidence. So lets not trot fallacies about creation and I.D. out in order to protect your sacred cows.
Remember how nobody could *prove* that smoking causes cancer? That's the way this is going to go...
Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It increases your risks of getting cancer but all cancer linked to smoking also happens naturally without smoking. The differences are the likelihood of getting it. Less than 10 percent of life long smokers will ever get cancer and only about 30 percent of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking.
Now smoking does _cause_ some health problems and the increased _risk_ of cancer is probably something you shouldn't take lightly. Perhaps if this bill does make it into law, it would stop misconstrued facts from becoming known axioms.
Nothing prevented the EPA from regulating the chemical spill in question and in fact, the EPA has not proposed any additional regulation since and has failed to provide regulation for a similar incident a few years earlier.
The chemical spill wasn't a problem of no or lacking regulation, it was a problem with failed enforcement of regulation and failing to maintain equipment and follow laws for reporting spills. No amount of hamstringing would have enabled or prevented or changed what happened in Charleston. Enforcement of existing regulation certainly might have though.
The FDA point is somewhat more important here then anything. I bet you have been conditioned from the no smoking laws and all the reports being threaded to the public that if you look at a cigarette you will get cancer and die a horrible death 3 days ago. And if you ever see someone smoking, your eyes will fall out, you will have a heart attach and die on the spot from cancer.
The fact of the matter is that less than 10 percent of life long smokers ever get cancer and only about 30 percent of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking. Granted, your risk of cancer does increase and certain types of cancer do increase if you smoke, but it's not the death nail in the coffin it is made out to be.
But by no means am I saying smoking is not bad for you or that you shouldn't avoid second hand smoke if you want to either. But the hype surrounding some of the issues is blown way out of proportion and often are exaggerated. Even the US EPA lost a lawsuit in 1993-1998 for a report it issued stating people were dieing from second hand smoke due to cherry picking data and construing science in order to reach a predrawn conclusion. I guess I should also add that in 2003, the EPA had the decision reversed on appeal, not because their study or release was good, valid, or anything, but because it didn't carry any regulatory weight so it wasn't regulated by The Radon Research Act passed in 1986 under Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Again, I'm not saying second hand smoke is good for you but it does appear that the science behind it being bad was if not originally, a political motivation in the least with the goal of using junk science to fuel future scientific reference to it by corruption of reality and pollution of facts. The fact is the EPA conducted itself in the exact same ways as you remember the cigarette industry doing. With open access to all the information, both can be detected more readily and pointed out publicly.
You act as if the only other people who will ever try to duplicate the results using the same said data are companies who are apposed to the regulation. It is interesting that you would think science works this way and think this is a reason not to release all data used to make government regulations.
The fact of the matter is, if sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings and every research team from every university and every environmental group and everyone else who is interested can reproduce it, all that will happen is "the [insert industry] industry" will be labeled morons and we will move on. That's the greatest part about this open access to the data. You can look yourself and see how sound it is, everyone else can look and reproduce it, and if it is true, then no denials by any industry could ever withstand the scrutiny.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this up. It is so damn true it should be written in stone somewhere and referenced on the test to any IT job.
I don't know how many times I have had to relax some restriction for a CEO or partner or owner because they were too special for it. Of course in the case of a partner or owner, it's their money and equipment so it's their choice all along, as for a CEO or CFO, it is sort of the same so I do/did whatever they wanted. I remember removing mail attachment size restrictions and even executable restrictions for one because he wanted to watch a video. Assuming it was a video concerning the job (he's in the hospitality business), I did so then shortly after we had massive intrusion alerts on the firewalls IDS. Turns out, the video was of a dog pissing while walking on it's front legs only and there was an .exe attached in the same email that did nothing I could find other then send a ping to a server registered in Russia. About 2 days later, we were bombarded with intrusion attempts from Chinese IP addresses.
Another instance was at a law firm, one of the partners demanded the ability to use AOL as their internet provider and to have access to all his music on the work computer via Itunes. I even set up a separate computer with a KVM and separate monitor in order to isolate his work stuff from his recreational stuff but that wasn't good enough. Then one day all out email was getting rejected, turns out he managed to install a root kit that was sending spam from his system through the AOL browser but from our registered domain. Took about 3 days to get out from under that and removed from all the black lists and his reaction was to be pissed off that he had to redownload all his music from Itunes because I wiped and reloaded his system.
There are numerous examples I can give but it's all the same. Someone in a high ranking position has an entitlement to more then others when it comes to securing a system and it eventually leads to problems that could have been completely avoided.
System file checker (sfc) is a means of this isn't it?
If so, I believe that has been around since windows 98se and is intended to be administered by MS online updates after the initial instal. It's not terribly useful for files outside of windows core files though. but it is a pretty good check after a virus or malware removal to at minimum ensure you can get into an uncompromised safe mode to search for infection remnants.
I smoke anywhere I like outside of where I'm legally barred from doing so or the owner/proprietor has made a no smoking a policy. If someone doesn't like it, they can hang out around someone else.
I'm sorry to hear your health is not so good. I'm glad you have been able to take precautions and get around smokers enough that you can still be alive today and on the internet acting like a pompus ass the world should revolve around though. NO seriously, I am glad you are coping with your illness and are alive.
Funny thing. A bar I used to go to a lot used to be always crowded. My home state passed a no indoor smoking in public law and the night when it took effect, the bar was about empty. I sat there drinking a beer and occasionally going out to the designated smoking area and when I came back in one of the time, I noticed a table of about 4 or 5 girls that had came in while I was out. They were talking about how great it was going to be that they didn't go home smelling of smoke, they didn't have to breath those stinky cigarette fumes any more. One of them proudly proclaimed that she helped working with the political group that pushed the smoking measure onto the ballot and how they got out the vote. One of them was busily working her phone trying to figure out where everyone was at- they had become accustomed to meeting their friends and the normal inflow of cheery people at this bar. Finally, I heard her say one person was at another bar where there was a roofed outdoor room and they could smoke on that patio. She said another was at another bar which decided to ignore the nonsmoking altogether. The bar tender and I stood there listening to all this thinking so that's where everyone was. Then all the sudden, these girls got up and decided to go to the other bars where people were still able to smoke. They even told us they were going to the other bars but might be back. So the bartender and I did what any decent respectable person would have done and talked about how fucking stupid those girls were.
So you get what you want and then all the sudden find out it creates more difficulties or situations you do not like. Now you are harping about the result of what you wanted as if you had nothing to do with any of it.
Says the guy who has medical problems and wants everyone around him to change rather then deal with his own life.
Here is the problem with people like you. You can avoid smokers, you can avoid people who drink, you can almost always avoid drug users, all you have to do is change your behavior and your wished can come true. But don't be surprised that when you want to change someone else' behavior that it comes back to bite you in ways you never intended. Don't be surprised when they become angry or even violent around you because that is raw simplistic natural tendencies.
Now you can sit there and loo
Not true. I smoked for several years and quit for a little over a year and started smoking again. People like the smoke sensation entering their lungs, they like the relaxation afterwards and they like the way smoking steadies the hands and increases dexterity slightly. When I went back to smoking, I had absolutely no withdraw effects but I went back because I liked it. I only quit smoking (cold turkey) to get in a girls pants and she stuck around after I started back up despite being dead set against it when we first met.
I still smoke today because I enjoy it. If you do not smoke, I guess you will never understand but you have it all wrong. Sure there is addiction, but there is also other positives about smoking that people like and enjoy much the same as people who like to drink alcohol or toke on some weed or even do other drugs occasionally. All that can be done without addiction and is often done because people enjoy it.
You do realize that many people, while possibly addicted to smoking, continue to do so because they want to, they enjoy it. When you tell them to get help or to quit, you are actually telling them not to do something that is legal and they enjoy.
What I'm getting at is the anger is not from the conviction, it is likely from someone saying you can't do what you enjoy doing. Imagine if your family members constantly berated you over using the internet or whatever it is you enjoy because of hyped up claims about how bad it is for you despite no apparent signs of the damage until it some distant future. You would eventually get angry too.
Well, it probably wouldn't even go that far because it clearly states "to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the monetary amounts you can select. You would likely have to claim the card use wasn't authorized in order to get the charge back in the first place.
The merchant can initiate the fraud complaint. The site clearly says help defeat $name and candidates like her/him right before entering the dollar amount. So the only way to make a charge back would be to claim your card use was not authorized by you.
https://www.nrcc.org/alex-sink...
What I think is interesting is that this is yet another Florida voter who doesn't pay attention to what he is doing and decided he did it wrongly after the fact.
The site clearly says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the denomination amounts and claims "Contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes." as well as "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.nrcc.org" at the bottom of the page. Although the paid for and non deductability clauses do somewhat blend into the background picture but it is obvious something is written there and if I was going to give CC information, I would see what it says before entering anything in. I would hope anyone else would do the same.
https://www.nrcc.org/alex-sink...
It should also be noted that the standard donate template seems to be the one used for the NRCC site. The only difference is it says help defeat a candidate and has their name and picture present.
https://www.nrcc.org/contribut...
And to make things worse, the democrat in question doesn't even collect the contributions herself, she has them funneled into a PAC called ActBlue.
http://www.alexforcongress.com...
I don't see this as anything nefarious but rather failing to read the details of what you are doing. Perhaps we should institute a requirement that all campaign websites use AOL so users won't get confused over the details staring them in the face when they try to throw money at someone?
lol.. That reminds me of a situation about 20 years ago or so. Locked the keys in the car in the middle of nowhere and hacked the door lock with a rock through the window.
The thing about script kiddies is that they don't need to know much because they use other people's scripts and efforts.
Here is a more illustrating example. Most people who have rooted android phones have no idea how to actually root a phone. Instead, they either (themselves or pay someone to do it) use scripts and procedures developed by others in order to gain root access and do as they please. So someone set up a side business rooting phones and to the average user, they look like a hacker. To someone who has some knowledge, they are script kiddies following someone else' directions- except they aren't acting maliciously. They generally have no idea or concept of exploiting a file in order to sneak something onto the operating system of a phone that would allow them to replace the boot code which will allow them to install a new operating system which is what I would consider hacking. But they can achieve the same goals using procedures and tools outlined by the hackers so they are script kiddies.
What does SLR do to Holland? You know, the country that is famous for building dikes and pumping tidal waters out so they can reclaim land and put it to use constructively?
The problem isn't necessarily with SLR, it's with this concept that no one can ever deal with it so we much oppress everyone in the name of science and heal Gaia right now.
So when asking What does 3 or 4 feet of SLR do to Huston, NOLA, Mobile, Miami or Tampa Bay, particularly when the next hurricane and storm surge comes along? The question is incomplete. You need to also ask if there is remediation along the way verses doing nothing in the hopes that increasing the costs of everything and making people suffer can somehow magically prevent the sea level rise. So what does a 3 to 4 feet rise in sea level mean for any area that has planned for the rise? If it happened tomorrow, major problems sure would exist. If it happened 85 years from now and society planned for it, normal problems associated with current hurricanes may only exist.
Perhaps you should reread the post and do a little investigation yourself. MCHM is not even part of the Superfund chemical lists the EPA is mandating reportable quantities for. They do not have any jurisdiction over the chemical or the spill outside of cleanup. The article specifically mentions a couple of WV DEP investigators showed up and asked to tour the company. And yes, the article is critical of the EPA and OSHA, but the problem wasn't with either of them, the company didn't consider the spill a problem and failed to report it. Without the EPA or WVDEP inspecting the site, the problem would have remained the exact same- improperly maintained equipment and failing to report a spill- and the spill would have happened anyways.
What exact loopholes are those? Most companies do not get inspected simply because no one bothers inspecting them and no one is going to change that. No regulation imposed by the EPA can make anything different until the regulating agencies actually put the effort in. It would take an act of congress to get this and other chemicals listed under the EPA's jurisdiction. That is no loophole, that is simply law.
No, that is not any trick. WV's laws may have have been more strict but nothing prevented the EPA from inspecting to ensure minimum federal guidelines where applicable and reporting violations of WV's requirements. Furthermore, that sort of misses the entire issue as the company failed to report the spill which allowed the spill to breach the containment devices and flow into the river. If the company in question is not going to maintain their equipment and report spills, no amount of additional "We will make this regulation" is going to change that. It's like those idiots who think we need tougher penalties for people who murder someone in order to deter murdering someone when all it does is create a Circus when putting them on trial as you cannot give the death sentence more then once and no matter how many life terms someone is sentenced to, they can only serve one. The bottom line is a law wasn't followed, no agency caught it until it was too late, and employees as well as management turned a blind eye to the entire thing until the chemical surfaced in the drinking water.
The east coast will never be under water. At most, it will move inland a bit but the coast will always be the coastline.
On that note though, if the east coast is going to be relocates due to some preventable event, it will not happen for years and years so it will be relatively easy to deal with it over time. So the sea level is expected to climb something around 3 to 4 feet by the year 2100 if all goes as claimed. That's about 86 years from now.
So here is the question of the day, why can no levies, changes in building codes, flood plain maps, flood gates, or anything like that ever be implemented in that 86 year time span (roughly 2-3 generations of productive lifespans)? Even if Global Warming is a threat, why is the only way to deal with it seem to be cut emissions and oppress populations in order to protect the prime real estate of wealthy people instead of dealing with the problems as they are expected to be realized? Sure a flood wall might be an eyesore blocking your pristine view of the bay just like all those windmills that never got built would have. But why must the cost of energy and products become so outrageous that people cannot afford it in order to preserve that life style and views? It's not like we can stop or reverse global warming so why not deal with it and blame yourself if you get caught checking your mail in your underwear?
What? NO scientific or medical cites? Or anything else that is actually credible?
A simply google search for the claim would have produce more than enough support for it. But I'm betting you didn't even bother reading the post long enough to see what was written so doing something on your own is definitely out of the question. Amiright?
I never said it wasn't. I said people are like you, inflating the evidence.
Ahh.. Yes, the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN defense. Well, I guess it is better then the chewbacca defense. No one who isn't a true believer is allowed to criticize anything about the situation else it is automatically fake, false, fraudulent, and anything else you can think of right?
I understand why you posted as an AC. I wouldn't want any online identity associated with a post like that either.
lol.. Do you really think that?
There are numerous areas in which the congress has given the EPA the power to create, implement, and enforce regulation that has the full effect of law without any congressional oversight or further congressional actions. I know it sounds contradictory to the US constitution which states all laws have to be passed by congress and then either signed by the president or the senate has to muster enough support to override a veto. But the fact of the matter is that congress passed a law allowing an agency to effectively create law (regulation) at it's own whim based on a set of criteria surrounding scientific evidence and industry situations.To make things worse, congress has allows the heads of the EPA to be controlled under the executive and the current president at any time appoints and directs the agency as he sees fit.
DO you always go off half cocked or does stupidity run in your family? I aks because what you mention completely misrepresents the situation without any basis to back it up.
The EPA is current hiding from congress data it claimed it used as the basis for regulation it enacted. This law will not prevent any regulation already enacted but will require the release of all data used in making that regulation. It will take a separate act of congress to undo anything that has already been created. All it will do it ensure that the data and procedures are public and that everyone has the ability to validate them. Some company failing to invalidate the studies or science will not stop anything from moving forward as long as anyone else can reproduce the findings.
If you think no one being able to reproduce the claims is limiting because Big oil, coal, and gas, and people like the Koch brothers might benefit and therefore evil, I suggest you reexamine what science actually is and ask why the government is making laws and regulations with the effect of laws based on science that isn't science. Just because someone or some entity you do not like might benefit from some conceivable outcome is not in and of itself sufficient cause to allow government to make regulation under the guise of science that has no noticeable basis in it. Should there be a basis, those people benefiting or not should be completely irrelevant to the regulation. That is the entire basis of a free country which equal protection of the law is key to the fundamental implementation of the law.
You sound as if you would prefere the EPA to not act in cases in which is needs to if it somehow benefited Big oil, coal, and gas or people like the Koch brothers and that is simply wrong.
I haven't heard anything about the EPA and cigars but nothing surprises me. As for kids and cigars, ever hear of a blunt? That is where kids (teens) hollow a cigar out and put weed in it to either conceal the smell of the pot while smoking or to enhance the buzz a bit by the tobacco nicotine.
And no, I don't really have a problem with either separate or combined. Neither is my cup of tea either but to each their own.
Are you suggesting that everyone in car crash dies?
Of course car crashes do not cause death- it is the injuries sustained from them. I have never heard of a car crash being listed as the cause of death on any death certificate or coroners report.
May I answer that it could be because the FUck Beta activism to save Slashdot has totally annoyed many of us and we do not care any more just like all the Ron Paultards turned what initially appeared to be an interesting candidate into a name you wanted to avoid like the plague every damned chance you could get.
So you are saying that you or science can mutate an ape into a human?
What you are missing here is that saying God did it would actually require God to do it again in order to be reproducible. If you are going to accept God did it as a conclusion for reproducibility, then evolutionism shares no fear as you just state the equivalent of I said so also.
I think the problem you might be experiencing here is not fear of creation but fear of pet causes not being cast into laws because the science behind it is more wishful thinking then facts based evidence. So lets not trot fallacies about creation and I.D. out in order to protect your sacred cows.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It increases your risks of getting cancer but all cancer linked to smoking also happens naturally without smoking. The differences are the likelihood of getting it. Less than 10 percent of life long smokers will ever get cancer and only about 30 percent of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking.
Now smoking does _cause_ some health problems and the increased _risk_ of cancer is probably something you shouldn't take lightly. Perhaps if this bill does make it into law, it would stop misconstrued facts from becoming known axioms.
Nothing prevented the EPA from regulating the chemical spill in question and in fact, the EPA has not proposed any additional regulation since and has failed to provide regulation for a similar incident a few years earlier.
The chemical spill wasn't a problem of no or lacking regulation, it was a problem with failed enforcement of regulation and failing to maintain equipment and follow laws for reporting spills. No amount of hamstringing would have enabled or prevented or changed what happened in Charleston. Enforcement of existing regulation certainly might have though.
The FDA point is somewhat more important here then anything. I bet you have been conditioned from the no smoking laws and all the reports being threaded to the public that if you look at a cigarette you will get cancer and die a horrible death 3 days ago. And if you ever see someone smoking, your eyes will fall out, you will have a heart attach and die on the spot from cancer.
The fact of the matter is that less than 10 percent of life long smokers ever get cancer and only about 30 percent of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking. Granted, your risk of cancer does increase and certain types of cancer do increase if you smoke, but it's not the death nail in the coffin it is made out to be.
As for second hand smoke, This is more to the point as the health effects have not been proven and by some accounts, scientific principle has been completely ignored in order to make the association to the dangers.
But by no means am I saying smoking is not bad for you or that you shouldn't avoid second hand smoke if you want to either. But the hype surrounding some of the issues is blown way out of proportion and often are exaggerated. Even the US EPA lost a lawsuit in 1993-1998 for a report it issued stating people were dieing from second hand smoke due to cherry picking data and construing science in order to reach a predrawn conclusion. I guess I should also add that in 2003, the EPA had the decision reversed on appeal, not because their study or release was good, valid, or anything, but because it didn't carry any regulatory weight so it wasn't regulated by The Radon Research Act passed in 1986 under Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Again, I'm not saying second hand smoke is good for you but it does appear that the science behind it being bad was if not originally, a political motivation in the least with the goal of using junk science to fuel future scientific reference to it by corruption of reality and pollution of facts. The fact is the EPA conducted itself in the exact same ways as you remember the cigarette industry doing. With open access to all the information, both can be detected more readily and pointed out publicly.
You act as if the only other people who will ever try to duplicate the results using the same said data are companies who are apposed to the regulation. It is interesting that you would think science works this way and think this is a reason not to release all data used to make government regulations.
The fact of the matter is, if sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings and every research team from every university and every environmental group and everyone else who is interested can reproduce it, all that will happen is "the [insert industry] industry" will be labeled morons and we will move on. That's the greatest part about this open access to the data. You can look yourself and see how sound it is, everyone else can look and reproduce it, and if it is true, then no denials by any industry could ever withstand the scrutiny.
Oh noes.
The people are revolting.