Just wait until the church lady finds out about thus and makes a connection to porn/smut. Maybe you will go blind, maybe you won't. Maybe it will make you a deviant, maybe it won't. But i can see the church lady from saturday night live railing about how special this is.
The interesting thing is that to disagree with me you have to make shit up. There was no Constitutional provision allowing the Federal government to stop slavery. There was a provision that allowed the Feds to stop the import of new slaves, but we already had litterally millions of slaves so stopping imports didn't make us a significantly freer country.
Ok, I see what your problem is now. You stop paying attention mid stream and ignore anything said past what you want to hear. I said the constitution actually had provisions in it that could stop slavery over time. So you do not think banning the import of slaves or people after a certain date wouldn't work towards stopping slavery? You don't think automatically making ever single person born in the US a natural born citizen would go a long way towards stopping slaver over time? You don't think the amendment process could be used over time to abolish slavery like it eventually did with the 13th amendment could stop slavery over time?
Stop being an idiot.
So the fact they agreed to be bullied magically means it's not bullying?
No state was bullied into joining the union. There was discussion and debate over it, but all states joining did so voluntarily. And I can find no references to anything you are talking about as far as the colonies being bullied to join the US federal republic with a google search so I'm confident that this is yet another one of your only reading so much then stopping fits.
The Treaty of Greenville was agreed to after we beat the Indians in a war. It gave us the southern 2/3 or so of Ohio. It happened six years after the Constitution was ratified, and would have happened sooner if our Army hadn't sucked. We didn't convince the Indians to give up on the rest of the Northwest territory by clever legitimate Real Estate deals, we did it by crushing them in the War of 1812. All the stuff you're talking about happened decades after the last Founding Father died.
lol.. And you are forgetting that the northwest territory was given to the US in the Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the revolutionary war. The British kept forts and political policies in the territory that caused the Indians to go hostile against settlers in sort of a back door war. George Washington originally ordered the army to enter the territory and to halt the hostilities between the Natives and settlers and enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory but went all out after two major failures in doing so with primarily the British arming the Indians.
I'm sure this is another one of your only reading part of the story problems. You make it sound like everyone was sitting on their hands bored out of their skulls one day and decided to steal land. Well, the truth of the matter is that the land was ceded to us by Great Brittan who asserted ownership of it. Our military involvement was not to take something we didn't own, but to claim possession of something we did own. This information isn't hard to come by either, all you have to do is search for it with any popular search engine- but you have to read past your pre-misconceptions to find out the entire story.
Did Jane pass a Fugitive Slave Act, and then bully states into enforcing it?
I'm not exactly sure why you think that is important. Do you think it is not in the purview of the federal government to force property stolen in one state to be returned to that state when it is found in another? That actually seems like a legitimate use of the federal government- interstate commerce and the full faith and credit clauses. It seems as if they absolutely had to do it. But I see that making the states adhere to the US constitution is considered bullying to you. I think you have lost about all credibility by now.
Note that you actually just proved my point with that analogy. If the Constitution is designed so the Feds CA
I seriously doubt it. Serious terrorist don't really break the law and become subjects of scrutiny by the authorities until after they break the law. In other words, they are meticulous and methodical in setting out to do what they are doing and you often will not know anything about it until after it happens unless some connection is created somewhere that draws attention to them.
Of course this is easier accomplished in some countries then others, but the end result would be the real old fashion type police work where they show up after the fact and look for someone to blame.
That would be hollywood's rendition of the tale. The always used to label someone as a loose cannon (usually a cop of some sorts) who then goes against the rules and tears a bunch of shit up while trying to get one guy.
It certainly will not work. The American people are largely malleable and will support the crap the NSA is doing because they believe it is either needed for security or not a complete violation of the 4th and wouldn't ever be used on citizens.
So in the end, all you would have is more of the same with a more powerful government. Just think about where progress would have taken us with a government like that, the consensus tolerated slavery despite a few vocal minority groups objecting to it, the consensus tolerated segregation, the consensus objected to gays in general years ago and without speech rights which the consensus always seems to be against when it is speech they do not like (war protests, the KKK and so one), so little to no traction on that could be gained. In short, it is a terrible form of government that does little but allows people to feel good.
Just buying lube by the barrel will get more accomplished in a good way then a meta government would. It is why it has never caught on despite being pushed as a savior to our woes around the same time Ron Paul for president yielded the torch (Note, I'm not considering Paul's 88 run as yielding the torch).
It's not exactly comparable to private sector salaries. In the private sector, they don't tack on the company matching 401k contributions and so on to the salary figure. You normally only count the total amounts on your w2 at the end of the year as your salary which misses a lot. In the private sector, it would be more in line with the total cost of employment which companies do calculate but do not normally call a person's salary. If the government is posting numbers with those things including, they are really posting the cost of employment for people at certain jobs instead of their salaries for the postilions filled.
That being said, I should hope that any posting of salaries would be construed so that it doesn't divulge personal information. It wouldn't be too hard for a criminal to pick up a phone book or whatever and start tracking down who makes over 100k a year and rob their house because they know there will be valuable stuff there verses someone living in the neighborhood because they inherited the home or something. I don't mind co workers finding out how much I made, I don't mind family members or even some friends, but I do care if random strangers know.
Just outside the US, to the south, you'll find the United Mexican States.
Yup, you are right. I am so used to using the shorthand Mexico that I forgot they actually named them as states due to the creation of a federal republic just like the US did. But they were independent countries with different governments for periods of time before the federal republic was created so they were actually countries just like the states in the US were and are in some respects.
I did not agree with you. You said the constitution was about protecting slavery and stealing land from the indians which is is not. In fact, it specificaly says in the constitution that if the government takes property from someone, it needs to pay them just compensation and the constitution actually had provisions in it that could stop slavery over time.
I wasn't saying the Constitution didn't do that stuff. I was saying that the point of the Constitution is not to protect freedom. Most of the things you mention reduce freedom by small but measurable amounts by forcing state governments to obey the Feds, despite the fact that states are closer to their people the Feds are.
The constitution does not force the states to do anything, they voluntarily surrendered those portions of sovereignty to the federal government when it was constituted and they ratified their accession to the new government. Any state that didn't want to participate didn't have to and there were two states that didn't bother even ratifying their accession until after the first congress was assembled. There is no forcing there.
And you'll note that all the things you mention helped America's WASP Middle Class conquer Indian territory (with an Army led by Mad Anthony Wayne),
lol.. this is rich. In the early years of the nation, the lands that became states were already held by the people who became part of the country. In the years to come, the lands were either purchased from governing entities or settled by settlers outside of the US and then added after the fact. The land disputes with the Indians happened largely after claims on the land were made and it was sold like with California and Arizona/New Mexico. This entire concept of stealing land from Indians is BS fluff anyways. It is dribble that idiots trot out when they don't have an intellectual argument about the numerous unique events that had happened in the past.
Most of the things you mention reduce freedom by small but measurable amounts by forcing state governments to obey the Feds, despite the fact that states are closer to their people the Feds are.
No, they don't.. You haven't presented any argument coming close to how they have either. You just say stole land and the feds mean no freedom.
mostly by forcing the united States to have a single foreign policy and giving the Feds enough military resources that the Brits decided we'd be too much trouble to conquer.
lol.. Are you serious? That was the entire purpose of the confederacy and union in the first place. A unified face in matters of foreign relations that was constricted by the constituted powers of the federal government. The entire idea was so that Maine couldn't force New York to do something it didn't want to do and so that France couldn't win an invasion like with the war of 1812 (where the poor dirt farmers kicked their asses pretty badly even though the war had already be settled in the north with by essentially ignoring it happened and keeping the status quo just before that.
As for slavery, until the US constitution gave the federal government the power to interact, it rightfully refrained from doing so except when the southern states rebelled and Lincoln declared the slaves in those states to be free as far as the north was concerned. Slavery was simply one of those issues the federal government had no power in until the constution was amended to give them the power. You might as well say Jane Dickenson who was a elderly widow and mother of 2 in Canada helped protect slavery in the US because she did nothing to stop it too. Its just as big of a fallacy because she had absolutely no power to do anything either.
You see, what you problem is stems around what the federal government has become and you somehow think it was and has always been like that. The fact of the matter was that before the civil war, the feds had littl
What in the hell are you talking about. None of the colonies were forced to sign anything and if they were, they would just rebel against them like they did the king of england. There was no USA before then, the armies used to fight in the revolutionary war was the product of the states and took little direction from the continental congress. The articles of confederation were completely voluntary too. When it was seen that those weren't strong enough to protect each state's interest in them selves, the constitution was created and each state voluntarily adopted/ratified it through their state legislature/convention.
11 states ratified it by the time it came into effect and the other two (North Carolina and Rhode Island ) came along on their own shortly after.
Actually, we know they have used this information against Americans in American courts. We had a big story about it a while ago when the feds would call up a state agency and say X is going to happen at Y or something similar, you need to find a way of making it legit and capture them.
I think it was called creating a parallel construction where they know you have drugs in your car or something but pull you over for doing 1mph over the speed limit and search your car because "you were acting suspicious".
The US constitution was for one purpose and that was to create a union of 13 different countries (which the colonies became after independence from England and why outside the US state means country) without imposing on them outside the impacts of presenting a unified front for foreign affairs, settling disputes between the states, and providing very basic services like post office and roads, regulating interstate commerce and the such. It is all there outlined in the constitution- you can read it and it will back this up. It says nothing about what you try to claim.
I had a go with a company that implemented credit card processing directly into their hospitality suit (manage rental cabins and charges). This software is sold to small hotels and rental businesses with it being able to manage reservations, availabilities, different seasonal rates, and so on. They used their own processing center but it had the ability to use any we wanted to but the company I was working with used the provider's processing. Anyways, we had a problem with the processing module functioning with our proxy server. After doing some snooping with wire shark, I noticed some packets containing the numbers and names of the test credit cards. I pieced a couple packets together and had all the information on the transaction including name, address, credit card numbers, the cvc number, expiration dates and for some reason, information about the guest that you wouldn't think a processor needed like phone number and number of guests and dates of the stay.
Of course I was online with their tech support department trying to figure this all out and they have assured me a number of times that they have this system up and running at over 5,000 locations without a problem and the only difference is we had a proxy server segmenting the network (they actually suggested to the owner that we scrap the proxy and just use a netgear router to separate the public and private networks and I had to show the PCI compliance forms that recommend using a proxy). When I asked about it being sent in plain text, they at first didn't believe me until I sent all the packets. Then they stopped working on making their crap work with a proxy server and supposedly fixed the clear text problem which the solution was to send the CC data to a https site instead of an IP address which the software defaulted to. So the encryption wasn't even built into the program, it basically used a web browser to place the data on a TLS stream and with each update they did, you had to go back into the software and check that the address it was sending to had an https:/// in front of it because some of the updates reverted back.
Finally, the owner ended up trashing the entire system and going with a complete online version from another company that integrated with the reservation module on the website better that even allowed you to put a deposit on a cabin to confirm the reservation instead of calling and doing it over the phone.
But you assume it is encrypted because it is supposed to be encrypted but I have first hand experience where amusing didn't have the expected results and we only found out by accident. With any software processing like most modern POS machines and complicated inventory and tracking systems being integrated within them seem to be, anything is possible. Even if it was a lazy tech who decided to take a short cut or something to allow the info to not be encrypted.
Lol.. Not every rental or land lord is a thriving business. Most of them are simple day to day people who ended up with an extra house somehow. My landlord inherited two houses from his parents when they passed away so check or money order is most appropriate. He's a simple farmer who worked for the country road department all his life, hardly a high tech businessman even though he does have quite a bit of business savvy when it comes to farming.
Lots of rentals are a lot like this. They either kept their first home when they purchased a better one and rent it out, inherited the home somehow or saw an investment opportunity. When growing up, my father got remarried and my step mom owned a house, we rented it. You would be surprised at how many rentals come about like this and aren't really set up for online bill pay or credit cards or wire transfers and so on once you get away from the big cities. Cash, check, or money order will be just fine to these landlords.
Bridge rectifiers out of diodes combined with resisters to avoid droop is a lot more complicated then stringing a piece of wire between two pieces of metal. Or in your universe do diodes and resisters not need to be connected in some way that allows current to pass though them? Will this connection not have to tolerate the heat involved or the cycling between hot and cold?
Sure it isn't as complicated as a building a logic processor but it is more complicated then building an incandescent light bulb. You can save the moron comments for when you are looking into a mirror. I have yet to see any of these magical simple devices that you have produced.
That seems to be the going consensus at different sources. I've used both and prefer to use the debit card. However, I have only had one instance I could consider fraud and that turned out to be a battle in and of itself because the merchant that charged my card attempted to validate the purchase even though it was shipped to an address for a house that had been destroyed in a fire in another city altogether 4 or 5 years before the purchase.
I ended up getting lucky because the UPS driver refused to leave the package in an empty field and instead left a "you can pick it up" thing and the person who took my number actually did. It was a friend of a friend's kid who came over during a holiday party and we moved a TV and gaming system into the basement so they could pass the time doing kids things with the adults upstairs doing more adult things (drinking). Evidently, I left an old card with the same numbers out or something because he wrote down what was needed to order some crap online. (well, that or he broke in later and took the information, he waited for about 5 months before trying to use the numbers, but he told the police it was at the party that he found them). Either way, the bank wasn't going to treat it as fraud because the merchant shows it was delivered and it ended up being UPS that proved who received it making it fraud again. Took about 4 months to get cleared up.
What about reflections. I noticed ambient glows around the areas where a laser pointed is directed at so I assume that some of the light scatters when it is reflected from any surface not a mirror.
So lets assume two space crafts (man made) are using lasers to communicate in an orbit around mars, would we be able to detect and decode the communications from the reflections and scatter without directly watching the crafts or would it disperse so much that it wouldn't be noticeable from the earth.
I was thinking something similar but didn't have anything to do with catching pedophiles molesting children that seems to upset you. I was wondering how taking a pic of a kidnapped victim holding a news paper with the current date would still be proof of being alive when you now have to make them close their eyes to avoid being caught.
If this was 1887, I wouldn't be saying it was so easy. But the hard part was in finding out what filaments worked and that is long past. With more then a century passing, it is simple easy to find out how to make a light bulb and actually make one.
In several decades if not centuries, they will say it is easy to make CFLs or LED light bulbs. Why, because the hard part would have already passed and the how it works will be third grade classroom material.
It is nothing of the sorts. You fail when you start making crap up while trying to be offensive instead of sticking to established concepts that have been around more the 3000 years which are to some degree understood and implemented on over 80% of the worlds religions.
I too can make random shit up and claim something else is more plausible but it still doesn't mean it is or isn't correct. The example i gave was correct enough, the human being creation and animal being nature. The claim in comparison is about God which according to recent studies, 88% of the world's population belive in God. Do yoy want me to return in kind and cite some psudodcience then claim it makes the supernatural more plausible? It would be just as intelectually dishonest as what you did.
Like i said, science doesn't prove or disprove a God or that any god did or did not do anything. It only proves that a God might not be needed for something to happen. Anything else you attempt to claim is nothing but your bias. People simply use whichever as it fits their needs at the time and noyhing is wrong with that.
Nah.. you would want to outsource your products componants. You get the benefits og easily being able to rid yourself of old stock, not having to warehouse materials, at the ability to take advantage of lowering prices. That is a key benifit of just in time freight from third parties. Rumor is that dell and hp only have 10 days working stock on hand at one time and they pay the going rates as it comes off the trailers in the shipping docks.
At minimum, if you owned the production or resalrd companies, you would spin them off so they couldn't drag profits from the main company effectivly creating the same scenario.
There is nothing more plausible about any of it. It is either possible or not. The rest is only your belief or disbelief in that supernatural being and the amount of faith you keep in the possabilities you choose to believe in.
I planted a tree in my front yard. Of course naturally some how the seed could have been burried in the front yard when the conditions were just right to sprout and i mowed around it until a sizable tree waz there. Which is more plausible. Which makes more sense? Either could be true, it is impossible for you to know whithout being told.
The only difference between a scientific explaination and a supernatural one is the usefulness to the person using it. And even to that extent, both can be just as true as a scientific inderstanding can be the direct result a supernatural process/creation.
It is unscientific to compare the two.you just use the one that is most usefull to you when you need it.
It cannot even prove that. All science can do is prove a supernatural power like God is not needed for something to have happened. Providing an alternative path does not mean it was taken or any other way didn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wait until the church lady finds out about thus and makes a connection to porn/smut. Maybe you will go blind, maybe you won't. Maybe it will make you a deviant, maybe it won't. But i can see the church lady from saturday night live railing about how special this is.
Ok, I see what your problem is now. You stop paying attention mid stream and ignore anything said past what you want to hear. I said the constitution actually had provisions in it that could stop slavery over time. So you do not think banning the import of slaves or people after a certain date wouldn't work towards stopping slavery? You don't think automatically making ever single person born in the US a natural born citizen would go a long way towards stopping slaver over time? You don't think the amendment process could be used over time to abolish slavery like it eventually did with the 13th amendment could stop slavery over time?
Stop being an idiot.
No state was bullied into joining the union. There was discussion and debate over it, but all states joining did so voluntarily. And I can find no references to anything you are talking about as far as the colonies being bullied to join the US federal republic with a google search so I'm confident that this is yet another one of your only reading so much then stopping fits.
lol.. And you are forgetting that the northwest territory was given to the US in the Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the revolutionary war. The British kept forts and political policies in the territory that caused the Indians to go hostile against settlers in sort of a back door war. George Washington originally ordered the army to enter the territory and to halt the hostilities between the Natives and settlers and enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory but went all out after two major failures in doing so with primarily the British arming the Indians.
I'm sure this is another one of your only reading part of the story problems. You make it sound like everyone was sitting on their hands bored out of their skulls one day and decided to steal land. Well, the truth of the matter is that the land was ceded to us by Great Brittan who asserted ownership of it. Our military involvement was not to take something we didn't own, but to claim possession of something we did own. This information isn't hard to come by either, all you have to do is search for it with any popular search engine- but you have to read past your pre-misconceptions to find out the entire story.
I'm not exactly sure why you think that is important. Do you think it is not in the purview of the federal government to force property stolen in one state to be returned to that state when it is found in another? That actually seems like a legitimate use of the federal government- interstate commerce and the full faith and credit clauses. It seems as if they absolutely had to do it. But I see that making the states adhere to the US constitution is considered bullying to you. I think you have lost about all credibility by now.
lol.. Like I said, it's more complicated then stringing a wire between two pieces or metal. Your pic shows just that.
Face it, you failed.
I seriously doubt it. Serious terrorist don't really break the law and become subjects of scrutiny by the authorities until after they break the law. In other words, they are meticulous and methodical in setting out to do what they are doing and you often will not know anything about it until after it happens unless some connection is created somewhere that draws attention to them.
Of course this is easier accomplished in some countries then others, but the end result would be the real old fashion type police work where they show up after the fact and look for someone to blame.
That would be hollywood's rendition of the tale. The always used to label someone as a loose cannon (usually a cop of some sorts) who then goes against the rules and tears a bunch of shit up while trying to get one guy.
It certainly will not work. The American people are largely malleable and will support the crap the NSA is doing because they believe it is either needed for security or not a complete violation of the 4th and wouldn't ever be used on citizens.
So in the end, all you would have is more of the same with a more powerful government. Just think about where progress would have taken us with a government like that, the consensus tolerated slavery despite a few vocal minority groups objecting to it, the consensus tolerated segregation, the consensus objected to gays in general years ago and without speech rights which the consensus always seems to be against when it is speech they do not like (war protests, the KKK and so one), so little to no traction on that could be gained. In short, it is a terrible form of government that does little but allows people to feel good.
Just buying lube by the barrel will get more accomplished in a good way then a meta government would. It is why it has never caught on despite being pushed as a savior to our woes around the same time Ron Paul for president yielded the torch (Note, I'm not considering Paul's 88 run as yielding the torch).
It's not exactly comparable to private sector salaries. In the private sector, they don't tack on the company matching 401k contributions and so on to the salary figure. You normally only count the total amounts on your w2 at the end of the year as your salary which misses a lot. In the private sector, it would be more in line with the total cost of employment which companies do calculate but do not normally call a person's salary. If the government is posting numbers with those things including, they are really posting the cost of employment for people at certain jobs instead of their salaries for the postilions filled.
That being said, I should hope that any posting of salaries would be construed so that it doesn't divulge personal information. It wouldn't be too hard for a criminal to pick up a phone book or whatever and start tracking down who makes over 100k a year and rob their house because they know there will be valuable stuff there verses someone living in the neighborhood because they inherited the home or something. I don't mind co workers finding out how much I made, I don't mind family members or even some friends, but I do care if random strangers know.
Yup, you are right. I am so used to using the shorthand Mexico that I forgot they actually named them as states due to the creation of a federal republic just like the US did. But they were independent countries with different governments for periods of time before the federal republic was created so they were actually countries just like the states in the US were and are in some respects.
I did not agree with you. You said the constitution was about protecting slavery and stealing land from the indians which is is not. In fact, it specificaly says in the constitution that if the government takes property from someone, it needs to pay them just compensation and the constitution actually had provisions in it that could stop slavery over time.
The constitution does not force the states to do anything, they voluntarily surrendered those portions of sovereignty to the federal government when it was constituted and they ratified their accession to the new government. Any state that didn't want to participate didn't have to and there were two states that didn't bother even ratifying their accession until after the first congress was assembled. There is no forcing there.
lol.. this is rich. In the early years of the nation, the lands that became states were already held by the people who became part of the country. In the years to come, the lands were either purchased from governing entities or settled by settlers outside of the US and then added after the fact. The land disputes with the Indians happened largely after claims on the land were made and it was sold like with California and Arizona/New Mexico. This entire concept of stealing land from Indians is BS fluff anyways. It is dribble that idiots trot out when they don't have an intellectual argument about the numerous unique events that had happened in the past.
No, they don't.. You haven't presented any argument coming close to how they have either. You just say stole land and the feds mean no freedom.
lol.. Are you serious? That was the entire purpose of the confederacy and union in the first place. A unified face in matters of foreign relations that was constricted by the constituted powers of the federal government. The entire idea was so that Maine couldn't force New York to do something it didn't want to do and so that France couldn't win an invasion like with the war of 1812 (where the poor dirt farmers kicked their asses pretty badly even though the war had already be settled in the north with by essentially ignoring it happened and keeping the status quo just before that.
As for slavery, until the US constitution gave the federal government the power to interact, it rightfully refrained from doing so except when the southern states rebelled and Lincoln declared the slaves in those states to be free as far as the north was concerned. Slavery was simply one of those issues the federal government had no power in until the constution was amended to give them the power. You might as well say Jane Dickenson who was a elderly widow and mother of 2 in Canada helped protect slavery in the US because she did nothing to stop it too. Its just as big of a fallacy because she had absolutely no power to do anything either.
You see, what you problem is stems around what the federal government has become and you somehow think it was and has always been like that. The fact of the matter was that before the civil war, the feds had littl
Dude, are you even talking about the USA? Those what? and where was what was said wrong or incomplete?
And be specific enough to use complete sentences this time and communicate a complete thought instead of vague referrals.
So log in and edit every single post to a blank screen and rid yourself of that content.
Or maybe the word own is more of a "you are legally responsible for it" than a "you are legally entitled to it".
What in the hell are you talking about. None of the colonies were forced to sign anything and if they were, they would just rebel against them like they did the king of england. There was no USA before then, the armies used to fight in the revolutionary war was the product of the states and took little direction from the continental congress. The articles of confederation were completely voluntary too. When it was seen that those weren't strong enough to protect each state's interest in them selves, the constitution was created and each state voluntarily adopted/ratified it through their state legislature/convention.
11 states ratified it by the time it came into effect and the other two (North Carolina and Rhode Island ) came along on their own shortly after.
Actually, we know they have used this information against Americans in American courts. We had a big story about it a while ago when the feds would call up a state agency and say X is going to happen at Y or something similar, you need to find a way of making it legit and capture them.
I think it was called creating a parallel construction where they know you have drugs in your car or something but pull you over for doing 1mph over the speed limit and search your car because "you were acting suspicious".
http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/05/168205/dea-program-more-troubling-than-nsa
Wow, you are a complete moron.
The US constitution was for one purpose and that was to create a union of 13 different countries (which the colonies became after independence from England and why outside the US state means country) without imposing on them outside the impacts of presenting a unified front for foreign affairs, settling disputes between the states, and providing very basic services like post office and roads, regulating interstate commerce and the such. It is all there outlined in the constitution- you can read it and it will back this up. It says nothing about what you try to claim.
I'm not so sure it is all encrypted.
I had a go with a company that implemented credit card processing directly into their hospitality suit (manage rental cabins and charges). This software is sold to small hotels and rental businesses with it being able to manage reservations, availabilities, different seasonal rates, and so on. They used their own processing center but it had the ability to use any we wanted to but the company I was working with used the provider's processing. Anyways, we had a problem with the processing module functioning with our proxy server. After doing some snooping with wire shark, I noticed some packets containing the numbers and names of the test credit cards. I pieced a couple packets together and had all the information on the transaction including name, address, credit card numbers, the cvc number, expiration dates and for some reason, information about the guest that you wouldn't think a processor needed like phone number and number of guests and dates of the stay.
Of course I was online with their tech support department trying to figure this all out and they have assured me a number of times that they have this system up and running at over 5,000 locations without a problem and the only difference is we had a proxy server segmenting the network (they actually suggested to the owner that we scrap the proxy and just use a netgear router to separate the public and private networks and I had to show the PCI compliance forms that recommend using a proxy). When I asked about it being sent in plain text, they at first didn't believe me until I sent all the packets. Then they stopped working on making their crap work with a proxy server and supposedly fixed the clear text problem which the solution was to send the CC data to a https site instead of an IP address which the software defaulted to. So the encryption wasn't even built into the program, it basically used a web browser to place the data on a TLS stream and with each update they did, you had to go back into the software and check that the address it was sending to had an https:/// in front of it because some of the updates reverted back.
Finally, the owner ended up trashing the entire system and going with a complete online version from another company that integrated with the reservation module on the website better that even allowed you to put a deposit on a cabin to confirm the reservation instead of calling and doing it over the phone.
But you assume it is encrypted because it is supposed to be encrypted but I have first hand experience where amusing didn't have the expected results and we only found out by accident. With any software processing like most modern POS machines and complicated inventory and tracking systems being integrated within them seem to be, anything is possible. Even if it was a lazy tech who decided to take a short cut or something to allow the info to not be encrypted.
Lol.. Not every rental or land lord is a thriving business. Most of them are simple day to day people who ended up with an extra house somehow. My landlord inherited two houses from his parents when they passed away so check or money order is most appropriate. He's a simple farmer who worked for the country road department all his life, hardly a high tech businessman even though he does have quite a bit of business savvy when it comes to farming.
Lots of rentals are a lot like this. They either kept their first home when they purchased a better one and rent it out, inherited the home somehow or saw an investment opportunity. When growing up, my father got remarried and my step mom owned a house, we rented it. You would be surprised at how many rentals come about like this and aren't really set up for online bill pay or credit cards or wire transfers and so on once you get away from the big cities. Cash, check, or money order will be just fine to these landlords.
Bridge rectifiers out of diodes combined with resisters to avoid droop is a lot more complicated then stringing a piece of wire between two pieces of metal. Or in your universe do diodes and resisters not need to be connected in some way that allows current to pass though them? Will this connection not have to tolerate the heat involved or the cycling between hot and cold?
Sure it isn't as complicated as a building a logic processor but it is more complicated then building an incandescent light bulb. You can save the moron comments for when you are looking into a mirror. I have yet to see any of these magical simple devices that you have produced.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2009/08/18/fraud-protection-debit-versus-credit-cards
That seems to be the going consensus at different sources. I've used both and prefer to use the debit card. However, I have only had one instance I could consider fraud and that turned out to be a battle in and of itself because the merchant that charged my card attempted to validate the purchase even though it was shipped to an address for a house that had been destroyed in a fire in another city altogether 4 or 5 years before the purchase.
I ended up getting lucky because the UPS driver refused to leave the package in an empty field and instead left a "you can pick it up" thing and the person who took my number actually did. It was a friend of a friend's kid who came over during a holiday party and we moved a TV and gaming system into the basement so they could pass the time doing kids things with the adults upstairs doing more adult things (drinking). Evidently, I left an old card with the same numbers out or something because he wrote down what was needed to order some crap online. (well, that or he broke in later and took the information, he waited for about 5 months before trying to use the numbers, but he told the police it was at the party that he found them). Either way, the bank wasn't going to treat it as fraud because the merchant shows it was delivered and it ended up being UPS that proved who received it making it fraud again. Took about 4 months to get cleared up.
What about reflections. I noticed ambient glows around the areas where a laser pointed is directed at so I assume that some of the light scatters when it is reflected from any surface not a mirror.
So lets assume two space crafts (man made) are using lasers to communicate in an orbit around mars, would we be able to detect and decode the communications from the reflections and scatter without directly watching the crafts or would it disperse so much that it wouldn't be noticeable from the earth.
Wow, you act as if he struck a nerve with you.
I was thinking something similar but didn't have anything to do with catching pedophiles molesting children that seems to upset you. I was wondering how taking a pic of a kidnapped victim holding a news paper with the current date would still be proof of being alive when you now have to make them close their eyes to avoid being caught.
If this was 1887, I wouldn't be saying it was so easy. But the hard part was in finding out what filaments worked and that is long past. With more then a century passing, it is simple easy to find out how to make a light bulb and actually make one.
In several decades if not centuries, they will say it is easy to make CFLs or LED light bulbs. Why, because the hard part would have already passed and the how it works will be third grade classroom material.
It is nothing of the sorts. You fail when you start making crap up while trying to be offensive instead of sticking to established concepts that have been around more the 3000 years which are to some degree understood and implemented on over 80% of the worlds religions.
I too can make random shit up and claim something else is more plausible but it still doesn't mean it is or isn't correct. The example i gave was correct enough, the human being creation and animal being nature. The claim in comparison is about God which according to recent studies, 88% of the world's population belive in God. Do yoy want me to return in kind and cite some psudodcience then claim it makes the supernatural more plausible? It would be just as intelectually dishonest as what you did.
Like i said, science doesn't prove or disprove a God or that any god did or did not do anything. It only proves that a God might not be needed for something to happen. Anything else you attempt to claim is nothing but your bias. People simply use whichever as it fits their needs at the time and noyhing is wrong with that.
Nah.. you would want to outsource your products componants. You get the benefits og easily being able to rid yourself of old stock, not having to warehouse materials, at the ability to take advantage of lowering prices. That is a key benifit of just in time freight from third parties. Rumor is that dell and hp only have 10 days working stock on hand at one time and they pay the going rates as it comes off the trailers in the shipping docks.
At minimum, if you owned the production or resalrd companies, you would spin them off so they couldn't drag profits from the main company effectivly creating the same scenario.
There is nothing more plausible about any of it. It is either possible or not. The rest is only your belief or disbelief in that supernatural being and the amount of faith you keep in the possabilities you choose to believe in.
I planted a tree in my front yard. Of course naturally some how the seed could have been burried in the front yard when the conditions were just right to sprout and i mowed around it until a sizable tree waz there. Which is more plausible. Which makes more sense? Either could be true, it is impossible for you to know whithout being told.
The only difference between a scientific explaination and a supernatural one is the usefulness to the person using it. And even to that extent, both can be just as true as a scientific inderstanding can be the direct result a supernatural process/creation.
It is unscientific to compare the two.you just use the one that is most usefull to you when you need it.
It cannot even prove that. All science can do is prove a supernatural power like God is not needed for something to have happened. Providing an alternative path does not mean it was taken or any other way didn't happen.