I was actually thinking something similar. The bank isn't the one that made you click on that link to go to the phishing site, and they aren't the ones that entered in the personal information for the crook to access the account and take your information.
Its really a simple matter of using enough common sense to figure out that maybe I should contact the bank to make sure that something actually happened. Another clue is that most banks also send out snailmail as well, at least everyone that I've ever been with has.
In today's world, there is no excuse in not having enough sense to question anything you receive in an email. Even if its from a friend, you're stupid to not scan the email and to have some form of spam filter up to protect you from possible malicious email.
"Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly."
That is what concerns me. One of the tenets that the American legal system is built on is that the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That right there shows me that we're guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of our legislators.
""What we're seeing over time is the equivalent of mission creep: Cases that would not be terrorism cases before Sept. 11 are swept onto the terrorism docket," said Juliette Kayyem, a former Clinton administration Justice official who heads the national security program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The problem is that it's not good to cook the numbers. . . . We have no accurate assessment of whether the war on terrorism is actually working.""
Taken from Washington Post
Out of all the so called terrorists arrests since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, there have been 180 cases that were brought to court that had no ties to terrorism at all. Out of the 142 that have been brought, only 39 have actually brought convictions. And only 14 of those convicted had any clear links to any kind of terrorist groups. The Patriot Act is nothing but a farce that allows for American civil liberties and rights to be stepped on.
This little exercise is another step in that direction. If I commit a crime and convicted of it, then feel free to add my DNA to a database that is intended for CRIMINALS, not CITIZENS, of the United States.
I don't think I've ever heard of a nuke that didn't give off radiation that wouldn't kill people. I don't think that you could develop a nuke to do what you're talking about either, but I'm not a scientist, so I could be wront.
The main reason I say that I don't think there are any explosions that can change the way something as powerful as a hurricane would be moves. I mean, with some storms, we're talking about some that are as wide as 600 miles. I know that the eye of the hurricane is what you're talking about, but even destroying the eye doesn't destroy the clouds that are attached to it, and there would still be the same instability there that would just let the eye reform if you were able to disrupt it.
I think you've got the right idea there myself. I can think of a few other reasons that you might not want to go meddling in the affairs of nature like that myself. One would be a change to the ecosystem. Like it or not, hurricanes are a part of the natural order on the planet we live on. Sure there is bad that comes with it, but without them, there would be less water, the habitats in the area you divert them to and away from would change, etc.
It would seem to me that a better idea would be to find better ways of building homes in areas that are prone to hurricanes. As an example, how many times do you have to have your home torn up to realize that what you are putting up is not designed to withstand these storms. If you want to live in that area, then you either build something to withstand the storms or you move. I don't really think that my tax dollars should be going to build a new house for you that will be blown away the next time a hurricane comes through. Then top that off with the whole process repeating itself over and over.
To me, certificates don't really prove anything. All it proves is that the person that took the certification can take a test and pass it. MO on that. I really lost all respect for certifications a few years ago when working at an Internet Help Desk. I supported DSL, dial-up, domain, and email configuration questions mostly and would get at least a few calls a week from MSCE certified users that would call and say "my name is *insert name*, I'm MSCE certified and I was wondering if you could help me with setting up this email account."
I'd answer "do you mean for the POP and SMTP server names sir?"
A reply would come, "no, I mean setting up the actual account in Outlook, I don't know how to do that."
I would get calls like that at least once a week. Since then, I don't believe that certifications prove anything more than the person can read a book and memorize answers for a test.
In celebration of the 10th anniversary of the launch of Windows 95, a Microsoft spokesperson had the following to say, "In another 10 years we hope to have all of the bugs and security holes from Windows 95 patched, then we will move onto Windows 98."
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually thinking something similar. The bank isn't the one that made you click on that link to go to the phishing site, and they aren't the ones that entered in the personal information for the crook to access the account and take your information.
Its really a simple matter of using enough common sense to figure out that maybe I should contact the bank to make sure that something actually happened. Another clue is that most banks also send out snailmail as well, at least everyone that I've ever been with has.
In today's world, there is no excuse in not having enough sense to question anything you receive in an email. Even if its from a friend, you're stupid to not scan the email and to have some form of spam filter up to protect you from possible malicious email.
"Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly." That is what concerns me. One of the tenets that the American legal system is built on is that the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That right there shows me that we're guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of our legislators. ""What we're seeing over time is the equivalent of mission creep: Cases that would not be terrorism cases before Sept. 11 are swept onto the terrorism docket," said Juliette Kayyem, a former Clinton administration Justice official who heads the national security program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The problem is that it's not good to cook the numbers. . . . We have no accurate assessment of whether the war on terrorism is actually working.""
Taken from Washington Post
Out of all the so called terrorists arrests since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, there have been 180 cases that were brought to court that had no ties to terrorism at all. Out of the 142 that have been brought, only 39 have actually brought convictions. And only 14 of those convicted had any clear links to any kind of terrorist groups. The Patriot Act is nothing but a farce that allows for American civil liberties and rights to be stepped on.
This little exercise is another step in that direction. If I commit a crime and convicted of it, then feel free to add my DNA to a database that is intended for CRIMINALS, not CITIZENS, of the United States.
I don't think I've ever heard of a nuke that didn't give off radiation that wouldn't kill people. I don't think that you could develop a nuke to do what you're talking about either, but I'm not a scientist, so I could be wront.
The main reason I say that I don't think there are any explosions that can change the way something as powerful as a hurricane would be moves. I mean, with some storms, we're talking about some that are as wide as 600 miles. I know that the eye of the hurricane is what you're talking about, but even destroying the eye doesn't destroy the clouds that are attached to it, and there would still be the same instability there that would just let the eye reform if you were able to disrupt it.
I think you've got the right idea there myself. I can think of a few other reasons that you might not want to go meddling in the affairs of nature like that myself. One would be a change to the ecosystem. Like it or not, hurricanes are a part of the natural order on the planet we live on. Sure there is bad that comes with it, but without them, there would be less water, the habitats in the area you divert them to and away from would change, etc. It would seem to me that a better idea would be to find better ways of building homes in areas that are prone to hurricanes. As an example, how many times do you have to have your home torn up to realize that what you are putting up is not designed to withstand these storms. If you want to live in that area, then you either build something to withstand the storms or you move. I don't really think that my tax dollars should be going to build a new house for you that will be blown away the next time a hurricane comes through. Then top that off with the whole process repeating itself over and over.
BF2=Battle Front 2 SWG=Star Wars Galaxies WoW=World of Warcraft HL2=Half Life 2
:)
Just in case they do.
To me, certificates don't really prove anything. All it proves is that the person that took the certification can take a test and pass it. MO on that. I really lost all respect for certifications a few years ago when working at an Internet Help Desk. I supported DSL, dial-up, domain, and email configuration questions mostly and would get at least a few calls a week from MSCE certified users that would call and say "my name is *insert name*, I'm MSCE certified and I was wondering if you could help me with setting up this email account."
I'd answer "do you mean for the POP and SMTP server names sir?"
A reply would come, "no, I mean setting up the actual account in Outlook, I don't know how to do that."
I would get calls like that at least once a week. Since then, I don't believe that certifications prove anything more than the person can read a book and memorize answers for a test.
In celebration of the 10th anniversary of the launch of Windows 95, a Microsoft spokesperson had the following to say, "In another 10 years we hope to have all of the bugs and security holes from Windows 95 patched, then we will move onto Windows 98."