The reason for the Buffalo NY address is that they bought Midland Marine Bank years ago.
Marine Midland Bank (and associated subsidiaries) - back when it was the #3 bank in the country. But yes, that is otherwise mostly accurate. I worked for them. They (HSBC) already owned a large amount of MMB's stock (1980 onwards) - they just finished the acquisition (wholly own) in 1988 (though Wikipedia says 1987 - I am pretty sure it is wrong - I worked there and remember when the purchase was completed, and when shortly afterwards, we were offered relocation packages from Melville, NY to Syracuse, NY - or severance pay if we didnt want to move).
Anyway, MMB was indeed headquartered in Buffalo, with major offices in Syracuse and Melville.
They aren't Chinese - they British. They were incorporated in London in 1990 and have been headquartered in London since 1993. Even the Wikipedia page will tell you that.
At the time, they may indeed have been Chinese. How do I know this? I worked for Marine Midland Auto Financial Group, a Division of Marine Midland Bank; who was also Saab Scania Credit Corporation, Suburu Credit Corp, Porsche Financial Services and a number of other financial arms for major auto manufacturers (hey, didja really think the auto companies were their own banks?). This was back in 1986 and 1987... MMAFC and MMB were fully bought out by the (at that time) Chinese The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.
At THIS time, Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation is STILL based in Hong Kong (as it's name implies).
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, based in Hong Kong, is a wholly owned subsidiary and the founding member of the HSBC Group, which is traded on several stock exchanges as HSBC Holdings plc.
HSBC Holdings (who owns it) is based in London, and apparently for regulatory reasons due to an earlier acquisition.
Headquarters HSBC's Hong Kong headquarters are at 1 Queen's Road Central in the Central area on Hong Kong Island. The HSBC Hong Kong headquarters building was also home to HSBC Holdings plc's headquarters until the latter firm's move to 8 Canada Square, London to meet the requirements of the UK regulatory authorities after the acquisition of the Midland Bank in 1992. It was designed by British architect Lord Norman Foster, and was the most expensive building in the world based on usable floor area at the time it was built.
Seems to me, like they are a London company in regulatory and legal requirements and location only, if Wikipedia's slant is correct. Sounds a lot like being a Delaware Corporation in this country...
And worse than only being crewed by one person, are the planned shuttle lines crewed by ZERO people. I somehow have a feeling that ZERO people are even less capable than ONE person of evacuating a train in the event of a problem.
If I recall correctly,/. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.
I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?
Besides Geoffrey's suggestion, searching the Rules and Guidelines section (or whatever it is named) for each transit authority will give you the actual document and the specific rule code pertaining to the issue at hand.
For instance, in NYC, the MTA's rules concerning this would be:
Section 1050.9 Restricted areas and activities. Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
It goes on to basically say that if you can legally be in the area, you can photograph there - or inotherwords, the definitions of what parts of a facility or conveyance are open to the public (ie: dont try to use this rule to break into the motorman's cabin to take pictures).
Googling, I have found similar for various other transit operations (the one in question here, Amtrak, and others).
Printing out the transit authority's "laws" on the matter, INCLUDING the section and subsection numbers, may go a lot farther for any type of permitted photography or videography.
As a for instance (not related to photography), a long time ago I was stopped for speeding, and asked why I was not wearing my seatbelt. I informed the cop I didnt have any (1963 Chevy) and didnt have to. He wasnt too believing of it. Fortunately, my driver's ed teacher had me write down the VTL law and section number (the law had just recently been enacted - many cops werent told that there were exclusions in it). I told the cop where in the VTL he could find the info (Section whatever, subsection whatever), he went to his car and pulled out his little pocket VTL, looked it up, apologized for not knowing it and dropped that matter. The speeding ticket was dropped later.
Point being, knowing where to point them to (politely) makes it easier for them to know you are telling the truth, instead of them simply assuming you are just trying to pull one over on you. Should it be that way? No... but it is.
Standard photoflash lamps emit actinic light with plenty of UV. This has a negative effect on just about everything.
I believe there has been multiple cases where this was observed over time - flash photography causing material changes in some sort of artifact. Based on this experience lots of museums allow photography, just no flash. Some places keep the light levels higher than they would otherwise (intentionally) so it is possible to take pictures without a flash.
Bingo! And they use special light bulbs that either (a) do not emit the (known) damaging parts of the spectrum (UV for instance) or (b) filter those spectrums out - or (c) standard light bulbs with special filters over them. In addition, they often employ special glass or acrylic that filters out those parts of the spectrum that would be experienced from sunlight (which doesnt mean that it will filter out what comes from the variety of different camera flashes).
This is just another example of how the western world has shown just how effective terrorism is. Especially if your goal is to make your enemy into a police state and loose every human right they once had.
OR, this is how this country's leaders used the threat (and actions) of terrorism to justify their goals of increased control, monitoring and power (or, police state as you put it). OR it's a combination of the two.
Keep in mind that there seem to have been far more domestic acts of terrorism that triggered no actions, that simple, stupid things are now labelled as terrorism to justify even more money spent in that area and even more rights removed, and so on. Definitely seems that our government seriously enjoys playing the "terrorism card" whether warranted or not, in an effort to take away more rights. Or so many people's theories on the matter go (people more versed than me on it). What's my opinion? Since I dont plan on joining any watch list, and dont know what it takes to be added to one, I think I will refrain from posting my opinion.:-)
Well admittedly I have been out of New York for a long time now, and some of that was second hand. The robotrains I was referring to were not the AirTrain units, but the R160 units down in the subways, which are still kept under manual control with 2 man crews.
I think there is more info on this topic on both Wikipedia on the NYC Subway page and R160 page, as well as even more in depth info on the various subway "fan pages" linked to in the article... so, you may find out more there, especially, as I indicated in my most recent post, I'm only going from memory (and half a cup of coffee). Thus, you may wish to check it out yourself for more info - and apologies if my memory of the matter turns up flakey - I'll blame that in advance on the (only) half a cup of coffee.;-)
Well admittedly I have been out of New York for a long time now, and some of that was second hand. The robotrains I was referring to were not the AirTrain units, but the R160 units down in the subways, which are still kept under manual control with 2 man crews.
Their plans seem to be to drop that crew to the motorman and remove the doorman from the equation, if memory serves. Considering I have watched doormen try to crush people caught in doors during rush hour, that may not be a bad idea. Most recent events were a lady who was leaving and got her handbag caught in the train. For whatever reason (security of the bag?) the strap was over her opposite shoulder (more difficult to snatch?) and the doorman signalled all clear and the train started moving. A friend of mine and I pried the door open enough to slip the bag out as the train was starting. The other recent incident was a rush hour train, where people (as is always the case) were trying to squeeze into the train. Someone got caught by the doors (same train as the door operator no less), and instead of opening it and closing it enough for the person to get in or out, the guy opened it about an inch and hit close - repeatedly, as if trying to cut the offending part of the person off with the door so they could close all the way. On the 4th or so attempt, other passengers forced the door so the person could get in.
The NYC Subway is considering fully unmanned trains on a shuttle line (3 or 4 stops, very similar to the Grand Central/Times Square shuttle), but from what I have heard, it will be very similar (including in equipment) to their tested AirTrain fleet.
On most employment applications, they ask if you have ever been arrested.
You should probably look a little closer at those applications. All the ones I have seen ask if you have been convicted of an offense. And generally just non-traffic related ones.
See my post above. I am currently seeking work, and have had mixed results with that question, including "Have you ever been arrested?" and "Have you ever been convicted of any offense (except minor traffic infractions)?"
Perhaps it's because I have submitted many dozens of applications and thus have more exposure to the different wording on them. Oh, and none of them have been for secure positions (pun intended and not)... most have been for regular tech work, waiting tables, customer service, etc...
Maybe your state has really stupid background check laws, in which case you need to bring that up with your state legislature. In my state (Arizona) the question is "Have you been convicted of a felony in the past 7 years?" That is what they can do a check on. Not arrests, not stuff going way back, felonies in the last 7 years.
So in my state at least, getting arrested won't be a problem with regards to an employment background check. As I said, if yours is different take it up with your state government.
What the state requests seems different than how employers word their applications:
- Have you been convicted of a crime? (do misdemeanors qualify? which ones?)
- Have you been convicted of a felony?
- Have you been convicted of any offense (other than traffic infractions)?
- Have you ever been arrested?
I've seen all of those, and more, on applications for employment (from various employers) in my state. In addition, a background check here (New York) doesnt seem to differentiate between what it puts on the report (arrest vs infraction vs non-felony crime vs felony crime) - though that may be due to (a) the requesting party's selected detail level (ie: everything vs felony convictions, etc) or (b) due to the detail level that the background check service employs by default. I suspect that similar applies elsewhere since there are quite a few companies that sell background checks to companies or institutions nationwide.
Regardless, on some jobs or information forms, it is either a misdemeanor or felony to incorrectly answer the question, regardless of which of the questions I listed above is on the application (for instance: state, city, local jurisdiction, federal job; insurance, state aid, federal aid, hospital work, etc). Inotherwords, if you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (lets say a concert, in the "pit" when a fight breaks out next to you, and you get arrested, but not charged, and not booked - and the form says "have you ever been arrested?" then the answer is yes - anything else may be a misdemeanor or felony).
You can also tripod the camera, take a picture with them on both sides of the object, then cut the two together without the fake "subject" of the photo to restore the picture you originally intended to take...
First, the MTA has permitted photography for quite some time. It's in their Operating Rules. Some "interests" have tried passing laws making it illegal, but those initiatives have been fought and squashed.
Second, the MTA budget is voted upon and approved (or not) each year, with detailed accounting for what the money is for. This is the reason why certain "line items" easily have their price tag quoted all over the media (like the new 2nd avenue subway line, including cost overruns and so on).
Third, what many forget is, problems with picture taking largely (though not always, and perhaps not even mostly) happen at Penn Station. Though the LIRR makes use of it, and the subway makes use of it, it is owned by Amtrak, who has an abysmal record of following Amtrak's own guidelines - much less ones they are not bound by (namely the MTA's).
Fourth, robotrains... they are IN USE at JFK already, there are three lines... one of which goes as far as Jamaica Station (from JFK). They worked fine to me. As for reliability, sadly, the most reliable train was the ancient redbird (most of it's variants), which were the MOST reliable train the MTA ran - but had to be decommissioned due to excessive body rust.
You need to sue for ONE MILLION DOLLARS, if not more. Sue the city, the transit authority, and the individual thugs themselves.
On what grounds? That your right to take photographs has been denied? No, you need to get arrested, then you sue the city.
The transit authority is going to back up their security officers' right to tell you to leave for any reason until the bad PR becomes significant, and that will never happen unless you were arrested...
...or it makes Slashdot, and then gets picked up elsewhere... (hopefully, at least).
How about phones just print the dB signal loss and be done with it? A number should be far easier for someone to tell about signal strength than guessing by 0-5 bars.
Yes, because "-70 dB" would be much clearer to your average cell phone user than "5 out of 5 bars"...
Keep in mind that many of those users also think it's a good idea to send text messages while driving. It would take a $10M advertising campaign just to convince those people that "-70" is better than "-100".
Well, it might help me... I think I got an Android that only has a total of four bars. So I get 0 through 4 bars. I think I got screwed...
Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, YOU DON'T THINK, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.
I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.
I bolded & capitalized one particular phrase that I dont think you should have included on your list, as it isnt really much difference from the operational states of most living humans in today's society - cant really use it to differentiate between a dead person and a living one.;-)
...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.
I think I want to return as a vampire zombie (no "or" slash between the two), hence, I opted out...
Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.
In all fairness to Jefferson, he did have that in mind (Constitution) - along with other things that did not make it in due to the mindset of the times and those others who had input into the matter.
Nothing is guaranteed in stone, but if there's a threat it's that Microsoft has implemented something odd which the driver doesn't handle and fails spectacularly on. I haven't looked at exactly how NTFS driver support has been done, but if you're running the same ntfs-3g driver on Linux and Mac (it is Unixy enough for that, isn't it?) without touching a Windows box, you should be even safer. Not that I've had any problems with it for years.
Very true... but most of the medical type establishments I have worked in have a plethora of Windows machines that the data gets transferred to as well... so even with various of the special purpose machines running MacOSX or Linux, there's a really good chance that the stuff will end up being transferred to (and/or from) a Windows machine. For instance, being printed out by a nurse or an assistant from their Windows workstations, with notes or timestamps or logs (of usage) being updated.
your idea has a flaw, we as citizens are not counted in the voting process
sure we can go out and vote, but all that vote does is attempt to sway our local leaders to vote one way or another
but they dont have to, that's how you end up with stuff like "Gore has the popular vote, welcome President Bush"
I still vote, but every time I do I feel like I would have spent my time better if I was jerking off for half a day and hit 4 buttons on the computer, that's all it amounts to anyway
Well, personally, I cant think of many ways of spending half a day that are better than jerking off (sex with another person maybe, but I am a slashdotter, so I wouldnt really know for sure)... and I presume the computer buttons pressed are on the mouse during the search for porn for the j/o session... so I guess I have to agree...;-)
I'd simply pick the "or" option... "or "vigorously" responding to copyright infringement notices from copyright holders.'"
So close... Now apply a different interpretation of "vigorously respond" - As in "aggressively countersue any frivolous DMCA complaints".
Awww, the RIAA doesn't like having enemies they created that actually have teeth? Well then, perhaps they should have
stuck to grannies and tweens.
I like that answer...:-)
I am hoping more people who receive takedown notices actually use the DMCA's provisions to fight frivolous takedown notices.
Heck, think about it... how much money could Google have recouped if they had sued Viacom for the bunches of frivolous takedown notices they issued to Google? I seem to recall the fines for abusing the DMCA in such a manner are pretty steep. Viacom and the RIAA may think twice about doing such things if more people used the DMCA against them.
response to a DMCA take down notice is voluntary; but most people comply anyway because there to chicken shit to tell the RIAA & MPAA to go fuck themselves!
Not quite accurate. It is MANDATORY in order for an OSP or ISP to maintain their protection under the safe harbor provision. If they dont care about that protection, then yes, it's "voluntary"
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for the Buffalo NY address is that they bought Midland Marine Bank years ago.
Marine Midland Bank (and associated subsidiaries) - back when it was the #3 bank in the country. But yes, that is otherwise mostly accurate. I worked for them. They (HSBC) already owned a large amount of MMB's stock (1980 onwards) - they just finished the acquisition (wholly own) in 1988 (though Wikipedia says 1987 - I am pretty sure it is wrong - I worked there and remember when the purchase was completed, and when shortly afterwards, we were offered relocation packages from Melville, NY to Syracuse, NY - or severance pay if we didnt want to move).
Anyway, MMB was indeed headquartered in Buffalo, with major offices in Syracuse and Melville.
They aren't Chinese - they British. They were incorporated in London in 1990 and have been headquartered in London since 1993. Even the Wikipedia page will tell you that.
At the time, they may indeed have been Chinese. How do I know this? I worked for Marine Midland Auto Financial Group, a Division of Marine Midland Bank; who was also Saab Scania Credit Corporation, Suburu Credit Corp, Porsche Financial Services and a number of other financial arms for major auto manufacturers (hey, didja really think the auto companies were their own banks?). This was back in 1986 and 1987... MMAFC and MMB were fully bought out by the (at that time) Chinese The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.
At THIS time, Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation is STILL based in Hong Kong (as it's name implies).
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, based in Hong Kong, is a wholly owned subsidiary and the founding member of the HSBC Group, which is traded on several stock exchanges as HSBC Holdings plc.
HSBC
.
HSBC Holdings (who owns it) is based in London, and apparently for regulatory reasons due to an earlier acquisition.
Headquarters
HSBC's Hong Kong headquarters are at 1 Queen's Road Central in the Central area on Hong Kong Island. The HSBC Hong Kong headquarters building was also home to HSBC Holdings plc's headquarters until the latter firm's move to 8 Canada Square, London to meet the requirements of the UK regulatory authorities after the acquisition of the Midland Bank in 1992. It was designed by British architect Lord Norman Foster, and was the most expensive building in the world based on usable floor area at the time it was built.
HSBC Holdings
.
Seems to me, like they are a London company in regulatory and legal requirements and location only, if Wikipedia's slant is correct. Sounds a lot like being a Delaware Corporation in this country...
And worse than only being crewed by one person, are the planned shuttle lines crewed by ZERO people. I somehow have a feeling that ZERO people are even less capable than ONE person of evacuating a train in the event of a problem.
Agreed - and quite true. A point I neglected to think about. A very important one no less.
Can I blame that on the lack of coffee I mentioned earlier? ;-)
If I recall correctly, /. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.
I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?
Besides Geoffrey's suggestion, searching the Rules and Guidelines section (or whatever it is named) for each transit authority will give you the actual document and the specific rule code pertaining to the issue at hand.
For instance, in NYC, the MTA's rules concerning this would be:
Section 1050.9 Restricted areas and activities.
Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
It goes on to basically say that if you can legally be in the area, you can photograph there - or inotherwords, the definitions of what parts of a facility or conveyance are open to the public (ie: dont try to use this rule to break into the motorman's cabin to take pictures).
Googling, I have found similar for various other transit operations (the one in question here, Amtrak, and others).
Printing out the transit authority's "laws" on the matter, INCLUDING the section and subsection numbers, may go a lot farther for any type of permitted photography or videography.
As a for instance (not related to photography), a long time ago I was stopped for speeding, and asked why I was not wearing my seatbelt. I informed the cop I didnt have any (1963 Chevy) and didnt have to. He wasnt too believing of it. Fortunately, my driver's ed teacher had me write down the VTL law and section number (the law had just recently been enacted - many cops werent told that there were exclusions in it). I told the cop where in the VTL he could find the info (Section whatever, subsection whatever), he went to his car and pulled out his little pocket VTL, looked it up, apologized for not knowing it and dropped that matter. The speeding ticket was dropped later.
Point being, knowing where to point them to (politely) makes it easier for them to know you are telling the truth, instead of them simply assuming you are just trying to pull one over on you. Should it be that way? No... but it is.
Let's start using those little bitty spy cams. Wireless, so they can't steal and destroy the evidence.
Let's start using those little bitty spy cams. Wireless, so they can't steal and destroy the evidence.
Or set your Android phone to automagically upload to Picassa or whatever other service. :-)
Standard photoflash lamps emit actinic light with plenty of UV. This has a negative effect on just about everything.
I believe there has been multiple cases where this was observed over time - flash photography causing material changes in some sort of artifact. Based on this experience lots of museums allow photography, just no flash. Some places keep the light levels higher than they would otherwise (intentionally) so it is possible to take pictures without a flash.
Bingo! And they use special light bulbs that either (a) do not emit the (known) damaging parts of the spectrum (UV for instance) or (b) filter those spectrums out - or (c) standard light bulbs with special filters over them. In addition, they often employ special glass or acrylic that filters out those parts of the spectrum that would be experienced from sunlight (which doesnt mean that it will filter out what comes from the variety of different camera flashes).
This is just another example of how the western world has shown just how effective terrorism is. Especially if your goal is to make your enemy into a police state and loose every human right they once had.
OR, this is how this country's leaders used the threat (and actions) of terrorism to justify their goals of increased control, monitoring and power (or, police state as you put it). OR it's a combination of the two.
Keep in mind that there seem to have been far more domestic acts of terrorism that triggered no actions, that simple, stupid things are now labelled as terrorism to justify even more money spent in that area and even more rights removed, and so on. Definitely seems that our government seriously enjoys playing the "terrorism card" whether warranted or not, in an effort to take away more rights. Or so many people's theories on the matter go (people more versed than me on it). What's my opinion? Since I dont plan on joining any watch list, and dont know what it takes to be added to one, I think I will refrain from posting my opinion. :-)
Well admittedly I have been out of New York for a long time now, and some of that was second hand. The robotrains I was referring to were not the AirTrain units, but the R160 units down in the subways, which are still kept under manual control with 2 man crews.
I think there is more info on this topic on both Wikipedia on the NYC Subway page and R160 page, as well as even more in depth info on the various subway "fan pages" linked to in the article... so, you may find out more there, especially, as I indicated in my most recent post, I'm only going from memory (and half a cup of coffee). Thus, you may wish to check it out yourself for more info - and apologies if my memory of the matter turns up flakey - I'll blame that in advance on the (only) half a cup of coffee. ;-)
Well admittedly I have been out of New York for a long time now, and some of that was second hand. The robotrains I was referring to were not the AirTrain units, but the R160 units down in the subways, which are still kept under manual control with 2 man crews.
Their plans seem to be to drop that crew to the motorman and remove the doorman from the equation, if memory serves. Considering I have watched doormen try to crush people caught in doors during rush hour, that may not be a bad idea. Most recent events were a lady who was leaving and got her handbag caught in the train. For whatever reason (security of the bag?) the strap was over her opposite shoulder (more difficult to snatch?) and the doorman signalled all clear and the train started moving. A friend of mine and I pried the door open enough to slip the bag out as the train was starting. The other recent incident was a rush hour train, where people (as is always the case) were trying to squeeze into the train. Someone got caught by the doors (same train as the door operator no less), and instead of opening it and closing it enough for the person to get in or out, the guy opened it about an inch and hit close - repeatedly, as if trying to cut the offending part of the person off with the door so they could close all the way. On the 4th or so attempt, other passengers forced the door so the person could get in.
The NYC Subway is considering fully unmanned trains on a shuttle line (3 or 4 stops, very similar to the Grand Central/Times Square shuttle), but from what I have heard, it will be very similar (including in equipment) to their tested AirTrain fleet.
On most employment applications, they ask if you have ever been arrested.
You should probably look a little closer at those applications. All the ones I have seen ask if you have been convicted of an offense. And generally just non-traffic related ones.
See my post above. I am currently seeking work, and have had mixed results with that question, including "Have you ever been arrested?" and "Have you ever been convicted of any offense (except minor traffic infractions)?"
Perhaps it's because I have submitted many dozens of applications and thus have more exposure to the different wording on them. Oh, and none of them have been for secure positions (pun intended and not)... most have been for regular tech work, waiting tables, customer service, etc...
Maybe your state has really stupid background check laws, in which case you need to bring that up with your state legislature. In my state (Arizona) the question is "Have you been convicted of a felony in the past 7 years?" That is what they can do a check on. Not arrests, not stuff going way back, felonies in the last 7 years.
So in my state at least, getting arrested won't be a problem with regards to an employment background check. As I said, if yours is different take it up with your state government.
What the state requests seems different than how employers word their applications:
- Have you been convicted of a crime? (do misdemeanors qualify? which ones?)
- Have you been convicted of a felony?
- Have you been convicted of any offense (other than traffic infractions)?
- Have you ever been arrested?
I've seen all of those, and more, on applications for employment (from various employers) in my state. In addition, a background check here (New York) doesnt seem to differentiate between what it puts on the report (arrest vs infraction vs non-felony crime vs felony crime) - though that may be due to (a) the requesting party's selected detail level (ie: everything vs felony convictions, etc) or (b) due to the detail level that the background check service employs by default. I suspect that similar applies elsewhere since there are quite a few companies that sell background checks to companies or institutions nationwide.
Regardless, on some jobs or information forms, it is either a misdemeanor or felony to incorrectly answer the question, regardless of which of the questions I listed above is on the application (for instance: state, city, local jurisdiction, federal job; insurance, state aid, federal aid, hospital work, etc). Inotherwords, if you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (lets say a concert, in the "pit" when a fight breaks out next to you, and you get arrested, but not charged, and not booked - and the form says "have you ever been arrested?" then the answer is yes - anything else may be a misdemeanor or felony).
You can also tripod the camera, take a picture with them on both sides of the object, then cut the two together without the fake "subject" of the photo to restore the picture you originally intended to take...
Wow, you are so wrong on many many counts.
First, the MTA has permitted photography for quite some time. It's in their Operating Rules. Some "interests" have tried passing laws making it illegal, but those initiatives have been fought and squashed.
Second, the MTA budget is voted upon and approved (or not) each year, with detailed accounting for what the money is for. This is the reason why certain "line items" easily have their price tag quoted all over the media (like the new 2nd avenue subway line, including cost overruns and so on).
Third, what many forget is, problems with picture taking largely (though not always, and perhaps not even mostly) happen at Penn Station. Though the LIRR makes use of it, and the subway makes use of it, it is owned by Amtrak, who has an abysmal record of following Amtrak's own guidelines - much less ones they are not bound by (namely the MTA's).
Fourth, robotrains... they are IN USE at JFK already, there are three lines... one of which goes as far as Jamaica Station (from JFK). They worked fine to me. As for reliability, sadly, the most reliable train was the ancient redbird (most of it's variants), which were the MOST reliable train the MTA ran - but had to be decommissioned due to excessive body rust.
- A fellow New Yorker and Rail Fan
Amtrak seems to do that a lot...
Amtrak police arrest... penn station
You need to sue for ONE MILLION DOLLARS, if not more. Sue the city, the transit authority, and the individual thugs themselves.
On what grounds? That your right to take photographs has been denied? No, you need to get arrested, then you sue the city.
The transit authority is going to back up their security officers' right to tell you to leave for any reason until the bad PR becomes significant, and that will never happen unless you were arrested...
...or it makes Slashdot, and then gets picked up elsewhere... (hopefully, at least).
How about phones just print the dB signal loss and be done with it? A number should be far easier for someone to tell about signal strength than guessing by 0-5 bars.
Yes, because "-70 dB" would be much clearer to your average cell phone user than "5 out of 5 bars"...
Keep in mind that many of those users also think it's a good idea to send text messages while driving. It would take a $10M advertising campaign just to convince those people that "-70" is better than "-100".
Well, it might help me... I think I got an Android that only has a total of four bars. So I get 0 through 4 bars. I think I got screwed...
Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, YOU DON'T THINK, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.
I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.
I bolded & capitalized one particular phrase that I dont think you should have included on your list, as it isnt really much difference from the operational states of most living humans in today's society - cant really use it to differentiate between a dead person and a living one. ;-)
...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.
I think I want to return as a vampire zombie (no "or" slash between the two), hence, I opted out...
Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.
In all fairness to Jefferson, he did have that in mind (Constitution) - along with other things that did not make it in due to the mindset of the times and those others who had input into the matter.
Nothing is guaranteed in stone, but if there's a threat it's that Microsoft has implemented something odd which the driver doesn't handle and fails spectacularly on. I haven't looked at exactly how NTFS driver support has been done, but if you're running the same ntfs-3g driver on Linux and Mac (it is Unixy enough for that, isn't it?) without touching a Windows box, you should be even safer. Not that I've had any problems with it for years.
Very true... but most of the medical type establishments I have worked in have a plethora of Windows machines that the data gets transferred to as well... so even with various of the special purpose machines running MacOSX or Linux, there's a really good chance that the stuff will end up being transferred to (and/or from) a Windows machine. For instance, being printed out by a nurse or an assistant from their Windows workstations, with notes or timestamps or logs (of usage) being updated.
your idea has a flaw, we as citizens are not counted in the voting process
sure we can go out and vote, but all that vote does is attempt to sway our local leaders to vote one way or another
but they dont have to, that's how you end up with stuff like "Gore has the popular vote, welcome President Bush"
I still vote, but every time I do I feel like I would have spent my time better if I was jerking off for half a day and hit 4 buttons on the computer, that's all it amounts to anyway
Well, personally, I cant think of many ways of spending half a day that are better than jerking off (sex with another person maybe, but I am a slashdotter, so I wouldnt really know for sure)... and I presume the computer buttons pressed are on the mouse during the search for porn for the j/o session... so I guess I have to agree... ;-)
I'd simply pick the "or" option... "or "vigorously" responding to copyright infringement notices from copyright holders.'"
So close... Now apply a different interpretation of "vigorously respond" - As in "aggressively countersue any frivolous DMCA complaints".
Awww, the RIAA doesn't like having enemies they created that actually have teeth? Well then, perhaps they should have stuck to grannies and tweens.
I like that answer... :-)
I am hoping more people who receive takedown notices actually use the DMCA's provisions to fight frivolous takedown notices.
Heck, think about it... how much money could Google have recouped if they had sued Viacom for the bunches of frivolous takedown notices they issued to Google? I seem to recall the fines for abusing the DMCA in such a manner are pretty steep. Viacom and the RIAA may think twice about doing such things if more people used the DMCA against them.
I'd simply pick the "or" option...
"or "vigorously" responding to copyright infringement notices from copyright holders.'"
That's already required by the DMCA... seems like this is pretty easy to me... (pick the "or" option).
response to a DMCA take down notice is voluntary; but most people comply anyway because there to chicken shit to tell the RIAA & MPAA to go fuck themselves!
Not quite accurate. It is MANDATORY in order for an OSP or ISP to maintain their protection under the safe harbor provision. If they dont care about that protection, then yes, it's "voluntary"