Another scam they have is steelcase furniture, departments are only allowed to buy steelcase furniture (which also sucks by the way), and the university has a special *deal* with steelcase to get a discount -- but your department pays an inflated price and the univeresity keeps the difference!
Are you sure about that? Depending on how that little deal is constituted, that smacks of illegal kickback to me...
Re:I'm looking for legal advice. . .
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 2
anyone know what to do if you get sued by someone after giving them bogus legal advice while claiming to be an expert?
Am I to assume you find yourself in this situation? Well, I am not a lawyer either, but here's some non-expert advice:
1. Hire a real lawyer;
2. Bend over and grab your ankles;
3. Don't be in a hurry to stand up - a lot of people will want a piece of you.
Is it just me, or is something very *WRONG* with that? Speaking from a purely USian standpoint, I pay taxes. I'd like to know what my taxes are paying for, and if the things they paid for are actually working out. The US government is Of the people, by the people, for the people. Why is our government keeping secrets from us?
What, are you kidding? You can't be told about how these things don't work as advertised. If you were, you might think about them and begin to formulate your own opinions on such things instead of just accepting whatever NASA thinks you need to know. And as a non-space-oriented-thingy-expert guy, how can you possibly have an opinion that matters? Christ, with that attitude, you might start to vote your "taxpayer" opinions, and NASA surely does not want that.
Nope. Sorry, but your participation is to be limited to opening your wallet and bending over.
We will not have the perfect pitching robot until it also scratchs itself for a minute and a half in between pitches.
Come on. It's got to do much more than that to be the perfect pitching robot. It has to be able to show up at spring training 200 pounds overweight yet still bitch about "only" making $6 million a year. It has to be a named defendant in at least one paternity suit. It has to be able to snort cocaine for years, come close to blowing its entire career, and then suddenly find Jesus.
I don't think anyone is arguing that LA County hasn't got the right to try to tax anything it likes. But just because they can doesn't make it a good idea. According to the County Assessors office, the average property tax levy in LA County is 1.25% of the value of the property. That might not sound like much, but with 8 satellites valued at $100,000,000.00 each, that's an additional $10,000,000.00 a year in taxes that no other satellite company in the country has to pay. Certainly, their competitors, Dish Network/Echostar won't have to pay it - they're headquartered in Colorado. Why on earth wouldn't they move?
Trust me, Hughes isn't going to relocate a huge amount of employees and equipment just because of the added taxes on these satellites.
You're right - they'll probably just move the equipment and a few employees. The rest will be left wondering what the hell happened.
Can you explain why, if it's not our fault, we shouldn't do anything about it?
Because, naif, if we didn't really cause it, what makes you think we can do anything about it?
You sure looks like the kind of self-centered guy who'll let drown the next guy because, eh, it's not your fault, you didn't do anything wrong..
Ahh, yes. You've sussed me out - I just do this because I'm self-centered. All that asking for evidence, looking for proof, suggesting that maybe it's not as clear as some would have you believe. Sheer intellectual laziness on my part. Sheesh.
Well, i invite you to go sit in a corner and look at the people who actually *try* to do something
'twould be nice if their "doing something" wasn't so very expensive to everyone else.
and it would be nice if you'd just stop bitchin'..
I will, as soon as my objections are addressed and my questions answered. Although you've made your tolerance of dissent clear, until then, basically, tough shit.
Although uncertainty exists about exactly how earth's climate responds to these gases, global temperatures are rising.
My point was never to suggest that no scientist believes the earth is warming. A few do not, but it is clear that the majority do. But it is disingenuous to suggest that there is some overwhelming consensus that human activity is to blame. When some of the contributors to the IPCC report make credible allegations that their positions have been misrepresented by the editors of the IPCC report in order to further a political agenda, that suggests to me that dissent exists. When well-known, reputable climate scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT and Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia question some of the fundamental assumptions of global warming, that suggests to me that dissent exists.
No one's interests are furthered by claiming that the science is settled. You suggest - thank you for your polite reasoning, by the way - that we should act even if we aren't sure, because waiting might prove disastrous. You could, of course, be right; however, I must point out that if the fundamental assumption that humans are causing global warming is false, the notion that we can slow its advance is very much suspect - the volcanoes of the world will continue to belch out sulfur and CO2 no matter what we do. In which case, we have undertaken a very expensive course of action, for absolutely no gain at all.
Practically speaking, DirecTV gives LA county the finger and moves to Austin or some other municipality that doesn't make a habit of shitting where it eats.
Pardon me for the long quote, but I really must respond:
Start with general_re's claim that "there is far from any consensus that this warming is the result of human activity." By any definition of "consensus" this is flatly false. There is a consensus (indeed, very close to unanimity) that global warming exists. There is a consensus (strong and widespread, verging on unanimous) that some portion of that warming is caused by humans. There is a consensus (strong and growing, but not unanimous) that the human-caused share is signficant and dangerous. There is even a consensus (much weaker, but still signficant) that most of the currently observed warming is caused by human activity. This last consensus derives primarily through negative data showing that other proposed causes are not contributing
That sir, is quite simply, the largest load of shit it has ever been my misfortune to be exposed to. Crack-smoking moderators notwithstanding.
I stand by my original statement. Your assertion - and it is no more than your assertion - that it is false does not make it so. It is simply flat-out bullshit to imply that it is widely accepted that human activity is the cause. You made the claim, though - back it up. Show me the evidence suggesting that there is some widespread consensus that I'm not aware of. I'll wait.
While Master Bait's claim that only people who aren't part of this consensus get grants from big oil isn't strictly true, it is true that a disturbing number of the "skeptics" are financed by those with a financial interest in the results.
See? Wasn't that fun? You didn't even have to make any sort of rational refutation or logical argument. You just have to impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree, and everything's settled to your satisfaction. How convenient. Oh no, you don't actually come out and SAY that's what you're doing - you're far too clever for that - but what you did accomplishes the same thing. Goody for you - science AND public policy without any of that bullshit like logic, proof, investigation, refutation, whatever. You give ad hominem a bad name.
And the degree to which we aren't good at predicting climatic change is irrelevant if our best current knowledge says a disaster will come if we don't respond.
Wait, wait. So we don't know if we're good or bad at predicting climate change. Predictions of global warming could be right on the money, or they could be wildly inaccurate. Oh, by all means, let's start flushing money away based on THAT. Here's something - all the eco-friendly measures in the world really are irrelevant if there's no disaster coming.
Geologic temperatures are in constant flux on a geologic time scale. And that flux has often meant bad things for the creatures of earth. The fact that historically recorded fluxes have shortened people's lifetimes is an argument against a concern for global warming only for those who don't care if their lives are shortened. The fact that geologically recorded fluxes have wiped out a vast majority of all the species which have ever evolved on the planet is an argument against a concern for global warming only for those who don't care if their species is wiped out.
Sure, you say, the planet warmed up and cooled off in the past...but, but, that was BAD. And people who don't care are like, fucked up, or suicidal, or something. It must be truly gratifying to have such superior insight over the rest of us peons who have to make do with not caring nearly so very much as an insightful, sensitive person like yourself, and therefore have to get by on reason and logic and evidence.
But I must have missed the archaeological evidence showing that paleolithic heavy industry led directly to the end of the last Ice Age. What? Don't tell me that humans aren't necessary for massive climate change. And surely you're not going to suggest that for most of the planet's history, the climate has varied wildly without any human influence. But this time it's REALLY DIFFERENT, right? We're here, and human activity is like, bad, and icky, and dirty. Oh yes, it must be us - this time, for sure.
Homework assignment: what percentage of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by humans, and what percentage by natural sources? You might be surprised.
So let's go back to the beginning:
There are certainly questions about the scientific truth of global warming predictions.
Oh really? Like what? What exactly is still in doubt in your mind. Please, please reveal it to us, so that a poor peasant such as myself might know what, exactly, is still open to questions, and what good sir freeBill has decreed is off limits for discussion by virtue of its inherent "nonsense and dishonesty".
All in all, no doubt: +5 for blindly reinforcing the conventional wisdom.
Why, that's right. Now you're getting it. You don't really have to respond to the issues presented, or form some rational critique. You just have to make snide comments about the intelligence and motivations of the folks you disagree with, and everyone will understand you perfectly. And to do it all anonymously, too - what a bonus. Kudos! You are hereby promoted to Eco-Nut, First Class! Wear your badge with pride, little tree warrior, and when you feel you have some substantive criticism of the article, the adults will be more than happy to listen.
You'll forgive me, but not knowing who folks like Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels are doesn't exactly inspire my confidence in his knowledge of the field.
Global climate change is a phenominally complex system that is not possible to describe in simple "cause-effect" arguments
You're kidding, right? Look, either human activity (the cause) is changing the global climate (the effect), or it isn't. Since 20 years worth of satellite-based temperature measurements - which are far more accurate than surface-based measurements - show NO temperature change at all, there may very well be no effect. In which case, why go looking for causes? Or maybe you've finally blown away that whole causality thing by finding effects without causes.
About the only people in the scientific community that don't believe in what you say are the very few who get research grants from big oil companies to make up research poopooing global warming.
Ahh, yes. That would be why over 15,000 scientists signed
this petition supporting the conclusions of this paper detailing how greenhouse gases have had little or no measurable effect on the global climate. That consensus. Stooges of the oil and gas industry, every one of 'em.
Of course, if they are puppets of big oil, their fraudulent or misleading or incorrect research and conclusions ought to be relatively easy for you to expose, rather than making essentially ad hominem attacks.
It is recognized by most of the scientific community that humans are accelerating the trend of global warming.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. While many scientists believe that the earth is gradually warming - and many have questions about even that - there is far from any consensus that this warming is a result of human activity.
While I agree that it is important to continue studying this issue, I also think it is important to let the evedence accumulate before we all go off half-cocked, and start imposing "solutions" that have very real costs without first knowing what the benefits will be, or even if there will be benefits.
Well, maybe, but as for me, I hope it does well on this since I can't help but think that if it does, the best way to really test its intelligence would be to follow up the MMPI with some MCSE exams.
If it's truly intelligent, there's two possible reactions: A) GAC goes on a killing spree as it attempts to rid the world of its evil human parasitic infestation; or, B) GAC is reduced to a pile of drooling mush, in which case, we'll know to be a bit more careful with the fragile intellect of GAC 2.
Re:Like The Simpsons...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Close. I'm not picking on you, but this is funny enough to me to post the complete lyrics:
Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Well it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
(spoken)
The Federal Highway Comission has ruled the Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
(reprise)
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American pride,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with them super-high beams,
She's a squirrel-squashing, deer-smacking driving machine,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Actually, I was being sort of facetious when I posted that, but to take your points on...
...you're right that it would necessitate replacing all the decoder equipment on the receiving end. As well, all the head-end transmission stuff would have to be modified. But I don't think the sats themselves would need much modification. After all, they're basically just orbiting transceivers - they grab the digital signal that comes to them from below, and just broadcast it right back - any digital stream will do, as long as it fits the transmission protocol, and I'd be surprised if they really couldn't tweak that from the ground.
Of course there's always the usual hardware hacks...
Granted, and of course, you're right that that's how it's done nowadays - to my knowledge, nobody's cracked the regular old public-key crypto they use now. So attacks uniformly consist of avoiding the triple-locked front door and looking for less-secure back doors. And that'd be how you'd attack it in the future, regardless of whatever super-duper encryption is used.
Ack! I forgot the best part. For users who are really paranoid, you can, in the next-to-last step, convert the number into triplets instead of pairs:
633 436
And then you convert both triplets to their Unicode decimal equivalents. Thus, the high-security password in this case is:
This may not display properly on non-Unicode browsers/platforms. But those of you who can display them will see that they have the added advantage of not actually appearing on any keyboard, thus exponentially increasing the difficulty for anyone wishing to guess your password.
BTW, for those who can't display them, decimal 633 is an upside-down lower-case "r", and decimal 436 is described as "Latin small letter 'y' with hook".
That is not nearly random enough. You need an algorithmic process that'll give you something really random.
Here's what I do. First, you take a phrase, famous or obscure. For this example, I'll use a little Shakespeare - "He hath a daily beauty in his life that maketh mine ugly."
Then, you take the second letter of each word, ignoring any single-letter words, thus producing "eaaeniihaig" in this case.
Then, you convert each letter to its decimal ASCII equivalent, giving us:
101 97 97 101 110 105 105 104 97 105 103
Then squash that all into a single number in that order, producing:
101979710111010510510497105103
Then, you take the 5'th root of that number, and drop any decimal places:
Then, you take THAT number, and break it into pairs thusly:
63 34 36
Finally, you take the first pair and convert it back to its ASCII decimal equivalent, and that's your password. In this case ASCII 63 is "?", so your password is "?" (without the quotes, naturally).
IANAL, but as far as I can recall, there is presedence already. A contract is not valid if it is not balanced, benefitting only one party.
A company can put all kinds of disclaimers in their little print, but if these disclaimers are not reasonable, a court will dismiss them in a heartbeat.
Yeah, basically a court can find a contract to be "unconscionable" if it is absurdly tilted towards one party or the other. Trouble is, I bet you could count on two hands the number of contracts voided by courts in the US for unconscionability in the last *century*.
In theory, such a thing can be done, but in practice it virtually never happens, because the general presumption is that both parties understand the contract before signing it. You could try to get a contract voided that way, but believe me, you're never gonna get beyond the judge asking you why, if the contract was so awful, you signed it anyway. Unless you're retarded, insane, or otherwise demonstrably incapable of guarding your own best interests, you're going to be stuck with that contract, even if it is totally one-sided.
...but then again, maybe he enjoys "flaunting" the law himself. You know, grabbing a copy of the Federal Register and Black's Law Dictionary and prancing around the neighborhood like a fancy boy, teasing his neighbors with 'em, and such like.
What inevitably happens? Going a little overboard, aren't we?
While I'm sure a rational case can be made for maintaining or strengthening the drunk-driving laws, or how a slippery-slope argument is not particularly persuasive, you're obviously not going to bother making it. It's so much easier to just brand someone as "paranoid" than it is to actually counter their position, isn't it? That way, you don't have to worry about any of that bullshit like reason, logic, or facts. How convenient.
Don't take it personally, man - if it's not a New York or California accent, Hollywood is going to butcher it. For some reason, contemporary actors and actresses are under the impression that Foghorn Leghorn is an accurate representation of a Southern (US) accent. Just go rent Cape Fear to listen to DeNiro doing what is probably the worst assassination of a Southern accent in the history of film.
They can't even pull off regional accents from their own country - yours is going to be a total loss, I'm afraid...
Slashdot Mirror
Another scam they have is steelcase furniture, departments are only allowed to buy steelcase furniture (which also sucks by the way), and the university has a special *deal* with steelcase to get a discount -- but your department pays an inflated price and the univeresity keeps the difference!
Are you sure about that? Depending on how that little deal is constituted, that smacks of illegal kickback to me...
anyone know what to do if you get sued by someone after giving them bogus legal advice while claiming to be an expert?
Am I to assume you find yourself in this situation? Well, I am not a lawyer either, but here's some non-expert advice:
1. Hire a real lawyer;
2. Bend over and grab your ankles;
3. Don't be in a hurry to stand up - a lot of people will want a piece of you.
What happens once they run out of the little soaps and shampoos.
Chili sauce?
Is it just me, or is something very *WRONG* with that? Speaking from a purely USian standpoint, I pay taxes. I'd like to know what my taxes are paying for, and if the things they paid for are actually working out. The US government is Of the people, by the people, for the people. Why is our government keeping secrets from us?
What, are you kidding? You can't be told about how these things don't work as advertised. If you were, you might think about them and begin to formulate your own opinions on such things instead of just accepting whatever NASA thinks you need to know. And as a non-space-oriented-thingy-expert guy, how can you possibly have an opinion that matters? Christ, with that attitude, you might start to vote your "taxpayer" opinions, and NASA surely does not want that.
Nope. Sorry, but your participation is to be limited to opening your wallet and bending over.
We will not have the perfect pitching robot until it also scratchs itself for a minute and a half in between pitches.
Come on. It's got to do much more than that to be the perfect pitching robot. It has to be able to show up at spring training 200 pounds overweight yet still bitch about "only" making $6 million a year. It has to be a named defendant in at least one paternity suit. It has to be able to snort cocaine for years, come close to blowing its entire career, and then suddenly find Jesus.
This thing's still got a long way to go.
I don't think anyone is arguing that LA County hasn't got the right to try to tax anything it likes. But just because they can doesn't make it a good idea. According to the County Assessors office, the average property tax levy in LA County is 1.25% of the value of the property. That might not sound like much, but with 8 satellites valued at $100,000,000.00 each, that's an additional $10,000,000.00 a year in taxes that no other satellite company in the country has to pay. Certainly, their competitors, Dish Network/Echostar won't have to pay it - they're headquartered in Colorado. Why on earth wouldn't they move?
Trust me, Hughes isn't going to relocate a huge amount of employees and equipment just because of the added taxes on these satellites.
You're right - they'll probably just move the equipment and a few employees. The rest will be left wondering what the hell happened.
Can you explain why, if it's not our fault, we shouldn't do anything about it?
..
Because, naif, if we didn't really cause it, what makes you think we can do anything about it?
You sure looks like the kind of self-centered guy who'll let drown the next guy because, eh, it's not your fault, you didn't do anything wrong..
Ahh, yes. You've sussed me out - I just do this because I'm self-centered. All that asking for evidence, looking for proof, suggesting that maybe it's not as clear as some would have you believe. Sheer intellectual laziness on my part. Sheesh.
Well, i invite you to go sit in a corner and look at the people who actually *try* to do something
'twould be nice if their "doing something" wasn't so very expensive to everyone else.
and it would be nice if you'd just stop bitchin'
I will, as soon as my objections are addressed and my questions answered. Although you've made your tolerance of dissent clear, until then, basically, tough shit.
But even the quote you posted hedges:
Although uncertainty exists about exactly how earth's climate responds to these gases, global temperatures are rising.
My point was never to suggest that no scientist believes the earth is warming. A few do not, but it is clear that the majority do. But it is disingenuous to suggest that there is some overwhelming consensus that human activity is to blame. When some of the contributors to the IPCC report make credible allegations that their positions have been misrepresented by the editors of the IPCC report in order to further a political agenda, that suggests to me that dissent exists. When well-known, reputable climate scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT and Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia question some of the fundamental assumptions of global warming, that suggests to me that dissent exists.
No one's interests are furthered by claiming that the science is settled. You suggest - thank you for your polite reasoning, by the way - that we should act even if we aren't sure, because waiting might prove disastrous. You could, of course, be right; however, I must point out that if the fundamental assumption that humans are causing global warming is false, the notion that we can slow its advance is very much suspect - the volcanoes of the world will continue to belch out sulfur and CO2 no matter what we do. In which case, we have undertaken a very expensive course of action, for absolutely no gain at all.
The real question is: How will this get resolved?
Legally speaking, who can say?
Practically speaking, DirecTV gives LA county the finger and moves to Austin or some other municipality that doesn't make a habit of shitting where it eats.
I stand by my original statement. Your assertion - and it is no more than your assertion - that it is false does not make it so. It is simply flat-out bullshit to imply that it is widely accepted that human activity is the cause. You made the claim, though - back it up. Show me the evidence suggesting that there is some widespread consensus that I'm not aware of. I'll wait. See? Wasn't that fun? You didn't even have to make any sort of rational refutation or logical argument. You just have to impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree, and everything's settled to your satisfaction. How convenient. Oh no, you don't actually come out and SAY that's what you're doing - you're far too clever for that - but what you did accomplishes the same thing. Goody for you - science AND public policy without any of that bullshit like logic, proof, investigation, refutation, whatever. You give ad hominem a bad name. Wait, wait. So we don't know if we're good or bad at predicting climate change. Predictions of global warming could be right on the money, or they could be wildly inaccurate. Oh, by all means, let's start flushing money away based on THAT. Here's something - all the eco-friendly measures in the world really are irrelevant if there's no disaster coming. Sure, you say, the planet warmed up and cooled off in the past...but, but, that was BAD. And people who don't care are like, fucked up, or suicidal, or something. It must be truly gratifying to have such superior insight over the rest of us peons who have to make do with not caring nearly so very much as an insightful, sensitive person like yourself, and therefore have to get by on reason and logic and evidence.
But I must have missed the archaeological evidence showing that paleolithic heavy industry led directly to the end of the last Ice Age. What? Don't tell me that humans aren't necessary for massive climate change. And surely you're not going to suggest that for most of the planet's history, the climate has varied wildly without any human influence. But this time it's REALLY DIFFERENT, right? We're here, and human activity is like, bad, and icky, and dirty. Oh yes, it must be us - this time, for sure.
Homework assignment: what percentage of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by humans, and what percentage by natural sources? You might be surprised.
So let's go back to the beginning: Oh really? Like what? What exactly is still in doubt in your mind. Please, please reveal it to us, so that a poor peasant such as myself might know what, exactly, is still open to questions, and what good sir freeBill has decreed is off limits for discussion by virtue of its inherent "nonsense and dishonesty".
All in all, no doubt: +5 for blindly reinforcing the conventional wisdom.
Why, that's right. Now you're getting it. You don't really have to respond to the issues presented, or form some rational critique. You just have to make snide comments about the intelligence and motivations of the folks you disagree with, and everyone will understand you perfectly. And to do it all anonymously, too - what a bonus. Kudos! You are hereby promoted to Eco-Nut, First Class! Wear your badge with pride, little tree warrior, and when you feel you have some substantive criticism of the article, the adults will be more than happy to listen.
From the link you cited:
I couldn't find the names of anyone I knew.
You'll forgive me, but not knowing who folks like Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels are doesn't exactly inspire my confidence in his knowledge of the field.
Global climate change is a phenominally complex system that is not possible to describe in simple "cause-effect" arguments
You're kidding, right? Look, either human activity (the cause) is changing the global climate (the effect), or it isn't. Since 20 years worth of satellite-based temperature measurements - which are far more accurate than surface-based measurements - show NO temperature change at all, there may very well be no effect. In which case, why go looking for causes? Or maybe you've finally blown away that whole causality thing by finding effects without causes.
About the only people in the scientific community that don't believe in what you say are the very few who get research grants from big oil companies to make up research poopooing global warming.
Ahh, yes. That would be why over 15,000 scientists signed this petition supporting the conclusions of this paper detailing how greenhouse gases have had little or no measurable effect on the global climate. That consensus. Stooges of the oil and gas industry, every one of 'em.
Of course, if they are puppets of big oil, their fraudulent or misleading or incorrect research and conclusions ought to be relatively easy for you to expose, rather than making essentially ad hominem attacks.
It is recognized by most of the scientific community that humans are accelerating the trend of global warming.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. While many scientists believe that the earth is gradually warming - and many have questions about even that - there is far from any consensus that this warming is a result of human activity.
While I agree that it is important to continue studying this issue, I also think it is important to let the evedence accumulate before we all go off half-cocked, and start imposing "solutions" that have very real costs without first knowing what the benefits will be, or even if there will be benefits.
G)enerator of A)rrogant C)laims.
Well, maybe, but as for me, I hope it does well on this since I can't help but think that if it does, the best way to really test its intelligence would be to follow up the MMPI with some MCSE exams.
If it's truly intelligent, there's two possible reactions: A) GAC goes on a killing spree as it attempts to rid the world of its evil human parasitic infestation; or, B) GAC is reduced to a pile of drooling mush, in which case, we'll know to be a bit more careful with the fragile intellect of GAC 2.
Close. I'm not picking on you, but this is funny enough to me to post the complete lyrics:
Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Well it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
(spoken)
The Federal Highway Comission has ruled the Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
(reprise)
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American pride,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with them super-high beams,
She's a squirrel-squashing, deer-smacking driving machine,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Actually, I was being sort of facetious when I posted that, but to take your points on...
...you're right that it would necessitate replacing all the decoder equipment on the receiving end. As well, all the head-end transmission stuff would have to be modified. But I don't think the sats themselves would need much modification. After all, they're basically just orbiting transceivers - they grab the digital signal that comes to them from below, and just broadcast it right back - any digital stream will do, as long as it fits the transmission protocol, and I'd be surprised if they really couldn't tweak that from the ground.
Of course there's always the usual hardware hacks...
Granted, and of course, you're right that that's how it's done nowadays - to my knowledge, nobody's cracked the regular old public-key crypto they use now. So attacks uniformly consist of avoiding the triple-locked front door and looking for less-secure back doors. And that'd be how you'd attack it in the future, regardless of whatever super-duper encryption is used.
But what is the practical usefulness of this outside of the military?
It'll be the end of the DirecTV pirates, anyway.
Ack! I forgot the best part. For users who are really paranoid, you can, in the next-to-last step, convert the number into triplets instead of pairs:
633 436
And then you convert both triplets to their Unicode decimal equivalents. Thus, the high-security password in this case is:
This may not display properly on non-Unicode browsers/platforms. But those of you who can display them will see that they have the added advantage of not actually appearing on any keyboard, thus exponentially increasing the difficulty for anyone wishing to guess your password.
BTW, for those who can't display them, decimal 633 is an upside-down lower-case "r", and decimal 436 is described as "Latin small letter 'y' with hook".
That is not nearly random enough. You need an algorithmic process that'll give you something really random.
Here's what I do. First, you take a phrase, famous or obscure. For this example, I'll use a little Shakespeare - "He hath a daily beauty in his life that maketh mine ugly."
Then, you take the second letter of each word, ignoring any single-letter words, thus producing "eaaeniihaig" in this case.
Then, you convert each letter to its decimal ASCII equivalent, giving us:
101 97 97 101 110 105 105 104 97 105 103
Then squash that all into a single number in that order, producing:
101979710111010510510497105103
Then, you take the 5'th root of that number, and drop any decimal places:
101979710111010510510497105103^(1/5) = 633436.01848182821643020050352705 --> 633436
Then, you take THAT number, and break it into pairs thusly:
63 34 36
Finally, you take the first pair and convert it back to its ASCII decimal equivalent, and that's your password. In this case ASCII 63 is "?", so your password is "?" (without the quotes, naturally).
And that, my friend, is pretty damn random.
IANAL, but as far as I can recall, there is presedence already. A contract is not valid if it is not balanced, benefitting only one party.
A company can put all kinds of disclaimers in their little print, but if these disclaimers are not reasonable, a court will dismiss them in a heartbeat.
Yeah, basically a court can find a contract to be "unconscionable" if it is absurdly tilted towards one party or the other. Trouble is, I bet you could count on two hands the number of contracts voided by courts in the US for unconscionability in the last *century*.
In theory, such a thing can be done, but in practice it virtually never happens, because the general presumption is that both parties understand the contract before signing it. You could try to get a contract voided that way, but believe me, you're never gonna get beyond the judge asking you why, if the contract was so awful, you signed it anyway. Unless you're retarded, insane, or otherwise demonstrably incapable of guarding your own best interests, you're going to be stuck with that contract, even if it is totally one-sided.
...but then again, maybe he enjoys "flaunting" the law himself. You know, grabbing a copy of the Federal Register and Black's Law Dictionary and prancing around the neighborhood like a fancy boy, teasing his neighbors with 'em, and such like.
;)
Well, maybe not
What inevitably happens? Going a little overboard, aren't we?
While I'm sure a rational case can be made for maintaining or strengthening the drunk-driving laws, or how a slippery-slope argument is not particularly persuasive, you're obviously not going to bother making it. It's so much easier to just brand someone as "paranoid" than it is to actually counter their position, isn't it? That way, you don't have to worry about any of that bullshit like reason, logic, or facts. How convenient.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Don't take it personally, man - if it's not a New York or California accent, Hollywood is going to butcher it. For some reason, contemporary actors and actresses are under the impression that Foghorn Leghorn is an accurate representation of a Southern (US) accent. Just go rent Cape Fear to listen to DeNiro doing what is probably the worst assassination of a Southern accent in the history of film.
They can't even pull off regional accents from their own country - yours is going to be a total loss, I'm afraid...