If you think you are somehow going to make someone pay or whatever for their reckless driving because you know where they live and who they are, you might want to reconsider your safety in the course of this venture because they would be able to get the same information from your car and do the same- but have already established they are reckless and have little regard for safety.
I doubt it would turn out the way you think it might. Best bet is to report it to the cops (you need their license number anyways) and let them decide what to do if anything about it.
Opening a phone book and picking a random name and number is entirely different than going somewhere that proves you have disposable income (large drone costs money). It would be entirely likely you have other nice things that could fetch a nice amount at the pawn shop or back alley rummage sale or whatever.
Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.
Because the money is made by an American corporation an is controlled by an American corporation so it is subject to the same tax laws as all other Americans corporate or not. However, the part about paying European tax is moot as a credit for taxes paid to other countries is given in the tax code.
What this amounts to is basically you or I making money and due to some political boundaries, are able to hide it from the IRS or whatever your home taxing authority is called yet still keep control and advantage of it as if it was with you all the time. In the US, the tax man thinks all your income- foreign and domestic- is taxable. It works the same in most European countries too (at least for citizens who cannot do complicated double Irish dips of whatever in the hell it is called).
And when a bomb threat is ignored but turns out to be real, everyone will want the heads of those that ignored it while claiming someone should make a law about that.
Well, the law has already been made and now you are crying about it being enforced. I guess my question is are you so upset about the law being enforced or because a rational examination of the facts throws the racists claim out the window and that leaves a lot of people without a narrative to support their preconceived notions.
So what if he is a kid? Kids his age and younger join gangs and kill people. It is not like there is absolutely no reason to worry about anything just because he is a kid.
Is there a magic age when bomb threats become more real or something?
Absolutely no it is not illegal for police to talk to children without parents being there. It is however not wise to do so because often what is disclosed cannot be used against them without loads of supportive evidence.
Also, an investigation was performed. The kid actually did say it was a bomb at one time. He claims he was joking but admitted to the making claim . This is a bomb threat at minimum. If you went anywhere and told someone you had a bomb, you can expect similar treatment. Go ahead and try it. Walk into a library or bank and tell someone you have a bomb and see what happens.
It sounds to me like this backlash is mainly pretty deserved. Even if they had legitimate reasons to say no to this new solar, it is clear that those were not the reasons articulated by the people in question.
so i can ask some random stranger around you why you did or didn't do something and take the answers as "your" reasoning? I mean seriously, for all you know whomever said those silly things could very well be tree huggers or even representatives of the corporation wanting to build out the solar farm trying to cause a backlash in order to force the community to give in and allow it.
All we know is that someone claims people said some stupid things. We do not know if they have any stakes in the game, if they really exist, or if there is any motivation other than what was reported (stupidity). But even then, it is not like the government accused the mention of a black hole as being racists.
No, he placed blame on the corps too. See the daddy warbucks reference. He just didn't stop at the corporate levels and included the only means any corporation could do something - by action of people on its behalf and the monetary incentives making it feasible.
That's somewhat interesting. Does this heritage thing hold true for c section babies and babies not placed with his mother for various reasons (death, adoption - surrogate mothers and so on ).
How is this frivolous? The salesman said that they would remove the logo because the former owner would damage the paint doing it himself and failed to do so.
My first thought was that he should have worried about the logo before selling it. Evidently, he did worry about it and was supposed to be taken care of by the dealership as part of the sale (trade in is a sale in its own right but was conditioned on the purchase of a different vehicle linking both )
Or at least that is the plumber's side of the story.
I understand it quite well. The point was that people are more commonly using it to appear like their traffic has originated somewhere else which is why the parent poster didn't know what the GP was trying to say. The fault lays with the GP's lack of knowledge not mine.
Well, not only that, but the camera system itself is somewhat exposed to the internet which means any weakness in the firmware or software running the https (or http) can possible be exposed and high tech criminals could actually use the system to know when the house is empty or where valuables are generally stored depending on where the cameras are placed.
Of course it is likely much easier to just watch the place a few nights and conclude when no one is home. But being able to avoid being on camera might provide even more confidence then putting masks and crap on to obscure your appearance.
VPN in modern slang times is generally used by people in one country trying to access restricted content in another (say copyright restrictions not allowing AU to view US shows on Hulu or something) or to obfuscate the original of the data being transmitted (dissident materiel or perhaps illegal to some extent material). The practical application of a VPN (secure tunneling access to a remote network like work access) seems to be forgotten by those using it for other reasons or the other reasons are more prevalent in certain circles that the reasoning doesn't flow as quickly.
I used to play a game online and people were constantly complaining about having to find a VPN. Turned out their ability to access the game came at a time there would be almost no one online in their country so they used a VPN to fake their location in an area where a lot of people would be online and had a better overall game experience. The game attempted to route you to servers in your time zone to prevent culture clashes and whatever which lead to a lot of boring sessions in odd hours evidently.
f we are to accept your reasoning, then we have to admit that the Bush Administration was inept, at the very least. But, in reality, it wasn't the president alone who made these repeated references, it was the entire administration. Then we have that ugly Powell appearance with the vial full of white powder not to mention that wonderful "artist's rendition" of the terrorist headquarters known as Tora Bora - which never existed.
Or, we could have just gotten false information from people supposedly in the know.
When taken as a whole, we find that no other answer can be arrived at other than this was a deliberate, false dialog meant to confuse the American people and did so successfully.
Nope. If you are only looking at half the facts, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But I never made any claim to the validity of the prewar intelligence, just that Bush never made the claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11. So I don't really know why you are bringing it up. It doesn't refute my claim which you seemed to sidestep quite nicely.
The problem is what we are seeing is a need to create a false narrative which proves those who originally created these lies know that they have been pegged as liars. Does it bother you that you are one of those people spreading a false narrative designed to cover the deceit which caused tens of thousands of Iraqis to be killed with a likely hundred thousand or so maimed? Can't you understand that it was those actions which you are trying to hide that led to us having to deal with ISIS?
I should as much as ask you the same. I mean your position is only valid if you ignore quite a lot of reality which makes it not real at all. We had faulty intelligence reports, over stated reliability of these reports, and outright lies by captured Al Qaeda personnel. To say misinformed statements (which is what it really boils down to) is a lie while ignoring the lies that caused the misinformation itself is a lot dishonest to say the least. It is as if you have a narrative and damn anything getting in it's way. You are what you are claiming Bush and Co to be.
Either way, what you need to know is that you are the problem, not part of the solution.You should stand in front of a mirror while saying that. First, I never said we didn't get things wrong, I said that Bush's position was never that Iraq was connected to 9/11, his position was that we couldn't operate as usual after 9/11 because of the magnitude of it. You have offered nothing to discredit that and only started on tired old already discredited Bush Lied people Died propaganda that frankly does not pass the smell test in this day and age.
The Idea that Sadam Husein was tied to 9/11 is completely fabricated. They tried to tie him to Al Qaeda and as I previously said, the only connections to 9/11 was in how we treated threats after 9/11. Your link, as biased and opinionated as it is (of course it has to be because it is discussing other people's opinions), even supports that if you bothered to read it.
When we went to war in Iraq, there were known Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership officials in Iraq given safe harbor while being treated for injuries sustained in the battlefields of Afghanistan. We had reports from other countries of supposed connections to Al Qaeda that even the administration downplayed after they appeared to be bogus. We had Al Qaeda officials claiming there was a link that later turned out to be falsely given to avoid torture by the Egyptians. As far as your link is concerned, it only says that Al Qaeda and Iraq did not cooperate in any attack on the US but never says anything about their connections or connections in the future and Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization we needed to worry about. It was the War on Terror not was on Iraq.
You are correct in that Saddam and Al Qaeda likely would not have collaborated on anything. But that does nothing to negate the fact that Bush's primary claim on the war on terror wasn't Iraq being behind 9/11, it was that we have to preemptively end threats before they become 9/11 stile attacks and that we can no longer wait for it to happened before taking actions (which had primarily been the operational tactics previous to 9/11).
Sometimes routers can decrypt user messages. It is called a man in the middle attack. About any router capable of deep packet inspection can also achieve this withssome patches but they can also be programmed to record sessions to other storage devices which could be replayed later unencrypted.
Of course there are ways to avoid that but you have to be actually trying to avoid it in most cases. This may be less of an issue after the Citibank situation in 2006 or 2008, but still exist as a concern.
FBI is domestic so you wouldn't be worrying about them unless you are in the US or in communication with someone or something that is.
What you need to be concerned with is the CIA and the NSA unless you are in a terrorist hotspot which you can add sigtel opperations by various military organizations including those of other countries too.
Their argument was never that Iraq was behind 9/11, it was always that the devastation of 9/11 proves we cannot wait until after an attack and treat it like a law enforcement measure because the risk to innocent human life was now too large. And because of Iraq's connection to terrorist groups including al qeada and their resistance to verification of WMDS as outlined in the armistice, we couldn't wait for something to happen before acting against them or terrorist groups.
The connection between Iraq and 9/11 was only in that we had to take threats more seriously and stop them before action was taken or enabled in order to prevent future 9/11 magnitude attacks. We knew Iraq had contact with several terrorist organizations including al qeada, offered $25,000 to families of suicide bombers, we couldn't verify the WMDs in Iraq and rhetoric from Iraq itself put the question in place. Bush and Co. Said because 9/11 happened, we couldn't allow that to go on else another 9/11 could happen again. It changed how we look at threats and how we respond to them.
"This " is the targeting of speech to drive it out of the public eyes so it is only discussed and implemented in secret instead of opposed and defeated . It is what this claim of action by anonymous is.
No, because Trump's vision would never come to reality. The more he expounds on it the more repulsive it is revealed to be and you absolutely need other parts of the government in order to implement it - which would be impossible given general discourse and free and open speech.
It is the secret stuff, the goals you only hear about as a justification when the secret shit is exposed that cannot be stopped with speech. All this is going to do is make crap secret - not because of some unwillingness to prove how stupid it is but because of direct action by those claiming to oppose it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think you are somehow going to make someone pay or whatever for their reckless driving because you know where they live and who they are, you might want to reconsider your safety in the course of this venture because they would be able to get the same information from your car and do the same- but have already established they are reckless and have little regard for safety.
I doubt it would turn out the way you think it might. Best bet is to report it to the cops (you need their license number anyways) and let them decide what to do if anything about it.
Opening a phone book and picking a random name and number is entirely different than going somewhere that proves you have disposable income (large drone costs money). It would be entirely likely you have other nice things that could fetch a nice amount at the pawn shop or back alley rummage sale or whatever.
Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.
Claim ignorance and say your calculator software made an error on the conversions. If it works for senators avoiding taxes, it should work here.
This is change you can believe in..
It's only possible because the US gave it up.
Because the money is made by an American corporation an is controlled by an American corporation so it is subject to the same tax laws as all other Americans corporate or not. However, the part about paying European tax is moot as a credit for taxes paid to other countries is given in the tax code.
What this amounts to is basically you or I making money and due to some political boundaries, are able to hide it from the IRS or whatever your home taxing authority is called yet still keep control and advantage of it as if it was with you all the time. In the US, the tax man thinks all your income- foreign and domestic- is taxable. It works the same in most European countries too (at least for citizens who cannot do complicated double Irish dips of whatever in the hell it is called).
And when a bomb threat is ignored but turns out to be real, everyone will want the heads of those that ignored it while claiming someone should make a law about that.
Well, the law has already been made and now you are crying about it being enforced. I guess my question is are you so upset about the law being enforced or because a rational examination of the facts throws the racists claim out the window and that leaves a lot of people without a narrative to support their preconceived notions.
So what if he is a kid? Kids his age and younger join gangs and kill people. It is not like there is absolutely no reason to worry about anything just because he is a kid.
Is there a magic age when bomb threats become more real or something?
Absolutely no it is not illegal for police to talk to children without parents being there. It is however not wise to do so because often what is disclosed cannot be used against them without loads of supportive evidence.
Also, an investigation was performed. The kid actually did say it was a bomb at one time. He claims he was joking but admitted to the making claim . This is a bomb threat at minimum. If you went anywhere and told someone you had a bomb, you can expect similar treatment. Go ahead and try it. Walk into a library or bank and tell someone you have a bomb and see what happens.
False arrest? The kid lied and said it was a bomb. No false anything there except for a bomb threat.
What about the FCC'S net neutrality rules?
so i can ask some random stranger around you why you did or didn't do something and take the answers as "your" reasoning? I mean seriously, for all you know whomever said those silly things could very well be tree huggers or even representatives of the corporation wanting to build out the solar farm trying to cause a backlash in order to force the community to give in and allow it.
All we know is that someone claims people said some stupid things. We do not know if they have any stakes in the game, if they really exist, or if there is any motivation other than what was reported (stupidity). But even then, it is not like the government accused the mention of a black hole as being racists.
No, he placed blame on the corps too. See the daddy warbucks reference. He just didn't stop at the corporate levels and included the only means any corporation could do something - by action of people on its behalf and the monetary incentives making it feasible.
That's somewhat interesting. Does this heritage thing hold true for c section babies and babies not placed with his mother for various reasons (death, adoption - surrogate mothers and so on ).
How is this frivolous? The salesman said that they would remove the logo because the former owner would damage the paint doing it himself and failed to do so.
My first thought was that he should have worried about the logo before selling it. Evidently, he did worry about it and was supposed to be taken care of by the dealership as part of the sale (trade in is a sale in its own right but was conditioned on the purchase of a different vehicle linking both )
Or at least that is the plumber's side of the story.
I understand it quite well. The point was that people are more commonly using it to appear like their traffic has originated somewhere else which is why the parent poster didn't know what the GP was trying to say. The fault lays with the GP's lack of knowledge not mine.
Well, not only that, but the camera system itself is somewhat exposed to the internet which means any weakness in the firmware or software running the https (or http) can possible be exposed and high tech criminals could actually use the system to know when the house is empty or where valuables are generally stored depending on where the cameras are placed.
Of course it is likely much easier to just watch the place a few nights and conclude when no one is home. But being able to avoid being on camera might provide even more confidence then putting masks and crap on to obscure your appearance.
VPN in modern slang times is generally used by people in one country trying to access restricted content in another (say copyright restrictions not allowing AU to view US shows on Hulu or something) or to obfuscate the original of the data being transmitted (dissident materiel or perhaps illegal to some extent material). The practical application of a VPN (secure tunneling access to a remote network like work access) seems to be forgotten by those using it for other reasons or the other reasons are more prevalent in certain circles that the reasoning doesn't flow as quickly.
I used to play a game online and people were constantly complaining about having to find a VPN. Turned out their ability to access the game came at a time there would be almost no one online in their country so they used a VPN to fake their location in an area where a lot of people would be online and had a better overall game experience. The game attempted to route you to servers in your time zone to prevent culture clashes and whatever which lead to a lot of boring sessions in odd hours evidently.
Or, we could have just gotten false information from people supposedly in the know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nope. If you are only looking at half the facts, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But I never made any claim to the validity of the prewar intelligence, just that Bush never made the claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11. So I don't really know why you are bringing it up. It doesn't refute my claim which you seemed to sidestep quite nicely.
I should as much as ask you the same. I mean your position is only valid if you ignore quite a lot of reality which makes it not real at all. We had faulty intelligence reports, over stated reliability of these reports, and outright lies by captured Al Qaeda personnel. To say misinformed statements (which is what it really boils down to) is a lie while ignoring the lies that caused the misinformation itself is a lot dishonest to say the least. It is as if you have a narrative and damn anything getting in it's way. You are what you are claiming Bush and Co to be.
The Idea that Sadam Husein was tied to 9/11 is completely fabricated. They tried to tie him to Al Qaeda and as I previously said, the only connections to 9/11 was in how we treated threats after 9/11. Your link, as biased and opinionated as it is (of course it has to be because it is discussing other people's opinions), even supports that if you bothered to read it.
When we went to war in Iraq, there were known Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership officials in Iraq given safe harbor while being treated for injuries sustained in the battlefields of Afghanistan. We had reports from other countries of supposed connections to Al Qaeda that even the administration downplayed after they appeared to be bogus. We had Al Qaeda officials claiming there was a link that later turned out to be falsely given to avoid torture by the Egyptians. As far as your link is concerned, it only says that Al Qaeda and Iraq did not cooperate in any attack on the US but never says anything about their connections or connections in the future and Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization we needed to worry about. It was the War on Terror not was on Iraq.
You are correct in that Saddam and Al Qaeda likely would not have collaborated on anything. But that does nothing to negate the fact that Bush's primary claim on the war on terror wasn't Iraq being behind 9/11, it was that we have to preemptively end threats before they become 9/11 stile attacks and that we can no longer wait for it to happened before taking actions (which had primarily been the operational tactics previous to 9/11).
Sometimes routers can decrypt user messages. It is called a man in the middle attack. About any router capable of deep packet inspection can also achieve this withssome patches but they can also be programmed to record sessions to other storage devices which could be replayed later unencrypted.
Of course there are ways to avoid that but you have to be actually trying to avoid it in most cases. This may be less of an issue after the Citibank situation in 2006 or 2008, but still exist as a concern.
FBI is domestic so you wouldn't be worrying about them unless you are in the US or in communication with someone or something that is.
What you need to be concerned with is the CIA and the NSA unless you are in a terrorist hotspot which you can add sigtel opperations by various military organizations including those of other countries too.
Their argument was never that Iraq was behind 9/11, it was always that the devastation of 9/11 proves we cannot wait until after an attack and treat it like a law enforcement measure because the risk to innocent human life was now too large. And because of Iraq's connection to terrorist groups including al qeada and their resistance to verification of WMDS as outlined in the armistice, we couldn't wait for something to happen before acting against them or terrorist groups.
The connection between Iraq and 9/11 was only in that we had to take threats more seriously and stop them before action was taken or enabled in order to prevent future 9/11 magnitude attacks. We knew Iraq had contact with several terrorist organizations including al qeada, offered $25,000 to families of suicide bombers, we couldn't verify the WMDs in Iraq and rhetoric from Iraq itself put the question in place. Bush and Co. Said because 9/11 happened, we couldn't allow that to go on else another 9/11 could happen again. It changed how we look at threats and how we respond to them.
"This " is the targeting of speech to drive it out of the public eyes so it is only discussed and implemented in secret instead of opposed and defeated . It is what this claim of action by anonymous is.
No, because Trump's vision would never come to reality. The more he expounds on it the more repulsive it is revealed to be and you absolutely need other parts of the government in order to implement it - which would be impossible given general discourse and free and open speech.
It is the secret stuff, the goals you only hear about as a justification when the secret shit is exposed that cannot be stopped with speech. All this is going to do is make crap secret - not because of some unwillingness to prove how stupid it is but because of direct action by those claiming to oppose it.
Do you actually believe that? Better yet, Do you actually expect others to believe that?