In the US we have a better end-run around that sort of thing. We just place unreasonable goals and expectations on our employees, underpay them, and ride them as hard as we can. Then when they begin to come apart at the seams (and begin to manifest the personality traits of someone who's being driven to the edge of their sanity) we can label them as underperforming, or bad behavior, or anti-social. If they don't acquiesce to the subsequent managerial flogging we can then terminate them. The company documentation will, of course, read "behavioral issues".
No. We don't fire on a whim. What we do is create the situation and then blame the victim.
> When I was 14 I was inducted into the CIA to secret undercover > work that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union
You too, huh? Maybe we were part of the same group. At age 15 (in 1991) I participated in a program called People to People: Initiative for Understanding. We were 30 high school students from Milwaukee, WI area schools who spent 30 days in the USSR to learn about their culture and the people there. Our trip started in Sochi (where I got drunk for the first time on Stoli with two Russian guys staying in the same hotel), Rostov (where one of the girls on the trip got laid with the Russian "host" who was probably about 19-20 years old), Kiev (where I toured with a really cool kid named Vova and his girlfriend), one other city (forget its name... O-something?), Leningrad (which had recently been back-renamed St. Petersburg), and Moscow (where our trip was cut short and limited to two days in Moscow, ostensibly because of the coming revolution). We were hustled through Moscow due to "time constraints". It was only after we returned to the US that we learned, 30 days later, that all hell was set to break loose in Moscow and that's more probably why they rushed the trip.
The joke in our group was always that we were sent to Russia to instigate the revolution.
If Gore had gotten in we'd be in the same position, more or less. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan but we'd be somewhere doing something that would cost us and our economy just as much. Could Gore have stopped 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. While he may have appointed different members to his cabinet the same bs infighting would have been going on in the intelligence agencies. Could Gore have stopped the.com bubble? Not even close. The Democrats were drooling over the prospect that every one of their children was going to become an internet billionaire overnight. Could Kerry have stopped the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. After 9/11 the media would have played their hand much the same way and the public outcry would've been much the same. The investor barons on Wall Street, as well as the vampires in the Federal Reserve, would have still been chomping at the bit for their money. The need for massive new spending bills (as a veil to funnel cash back to the people who actually have the power to turn out the lights on the government) would still have been there. The economy would still suck.
No, as much as you would like to naively think that there would be a different outcome, you're wrong. Some of the finer details may have turned out differently but, in the end, the nation as a whole would still be saddled with a morose economy, sliding wages, and increased federal spending.
When you come to a fork in the road, take it. It doesn't make any difference. The root of the problem is that the federal government has far overstepped its legitimate purpose... and no amount of Democrat vs. Republic dog'n'pony show is going to change that.
Growing up in urban WI you could get a paper route at age 12 (if you grew up in the days before they went to primarily adult motor carriers). My parents took it one step further. When my older brother turned 12 they had him sign up for a paper route and then commanded me that I would help him deliver. When I turned 11, 7 months later, they said "close enough", had my older brother sign up for a second paper route, had him go and get the papers, and then I would meet him a block away to take over for one of them. When I was 12 I could officially take over the first route. At 16 the paper route wasn't enough (for them) and I was ordered to start working at the local McD's as well.
I filed my first tax return at age 13 and haven't gotten a dime back in unemployment since (30 now).
I work(ed) around many wealthy families at my previous employer. In the 40s the trend for parents to bluster about their kids was the military. In the 50s and 60s the trend was the football team. In the 70s, 80s, and early 90s it was all about which colleges they could get into and the size of the family SUV. In the last part of the 90s and into the 00s it seems that the parents are one-upping each other with what sort of business ventures their children can get into. The people I worked with had children as young as 15 who were: movie producers (with offers from major studios), MMORPG game writers (with offers from game producers), day traders (to the tune of tens of thousands in profit), and database consultants (with small company contracts). The bottom line was, though, none of those kids could have even come close to doing what they did without the several thousand dollars' investment from their parents and the parents' willingness to stand back and give the kids room to pursue the ideas rather than hounding them to get some part time job at the local restaraunt.
I don't mean to take away from the fellow who's created Zoomr. More power to him and my hat's off to him. Let's stop short of automatically giving him an adult measure of respect, though. He wouldn't have been able to do what he did if he'd been spending his 5 evenings/week after school bagging groceries. Let's not start flogging ourselves remorsefully over wasted youth. The bottom line is opportunity--which most of us never really have.
Who said I failed? I gave my assessment of the process. The process is for crap. People with TS clearances seem to have this need to polish their own egos and, in doing so, they give out more information than they should. People with secret clearances can be just as vindictive and petty as any 16-year old working in McDonald's. It's completely ignorant to think that the screening process has anything to do with security. I worked shoulder to shoulder with people who, with TS clearances, would happily part with several thousand dollars if their cat had a hangnail. What would they be willing to give up should their children get kidnapped or their family threatened? The only thing that the cleared people had in common was that they always had some financial support system backing them. Beyond that their concept of security was about as genuine as someone living in Disneyland talking about their heroics fighting off the Pirates of the Caribbean. All talk but it was obvious that, should they ever have to choose between the good life and any sort of real hardship, they'd happily sell whatever they know to preserve their positions.
I have no axe to grind. I'm telling you what I could find on shared drives available to anyone in the company--even the Manpower temp lab techs who don't need clearances.
There is another way to look at the closeness of the election: random chance. Given a choice between "0" and "1", where the outcome doesn't really matter, the 0:1 ratio will end up close to 50:50. The issues are non-issues, the outcome of the candidate makes no difference, there's no surprise that voters who only take interest in the topic once every four years when it's plastered all over the news turned up a near equal split.
We might as well have asked people to cast a vote for up vs. down in a blind trial.
Been saddled with too many jobs where I get pushed into a corner, loaded with completely unreasonable goals, been blocked at every angle by the management when trying to meet those goals, and then been pushed out the door. Maybe I'm the only one treated this way. It's been my experience that promotions and advancement are best modelled as a clique. If you weren't selected to be in the clique when you walked in the door then there's no chance.
Hey... feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a job where the management gives me the tools I need to meet the goals they set. Show me a job where I can put in two years of outstanding performance and be able to ask for a raise without getting the usual,"You should be lucky just to have a job!" So far the only experience that I've had is the same that American colonists received when they were employed in the British military: happy to have you here, don't expect any recognition or thanks, if you ask for so much as a glass of water you'll be derided as a malcontent.
I don't burn out but it's been demonstrated to me over and over that burning out is what is expected of me. If I don't acquiesce to burning out then I get chased out the door. "You will submit to failure or else we will make you fail."
Pretty much. If you haven't been given the privelege of the connections and influence that it takes to do anything really successful by age 30 you can look forward to one of several things: 1) being a corporate grunt making just enough to squeak by with a 3% raise every year and maybe a promotion when you're 45, 2) being homeless, 3) suicide.
> I'd rather choose the theif who's trying to get enough money to help put his son/daughter through college
As a result the offspring of the thief will always get a better education and have a better starting point than your own children. Your children will be doomed to an existence that is pleasant only so long as the offspring of the thieves are sufficiently preoccupied with other entertainment.
I'm all for cooperating and getting along and accepting that there will always be someone who has it better. I have no problem accepting that I have a place in society and that place may not necessarily be at the top rung. However, the way I see it, the siphoning going on has reached an unacceptable percentage. It has reached the point where it's better to tell the thief to go get fscked than to give in willingly.
Every once in a while a regime reaches the point of completely inexcuseable self-serving greed and treachery. I feel that the political system here in the US has reached that point... about 130-140 years ago. The majority of the population has had it just good enough to be able to ignore the infractions and keep moving on. Good for them. I'm not in that group. At some point I must've pissed off someone with really long arms because, no matter where I go, there's never a clear opportunity to get ahead--there are only thieves backed by legal mumbo-jumbo with authority enforced by people who don't know any better.
> if people can not be bothered to make the little effort to vote
Give it up. You can't change the east wind by pissing to the west on election day. Especially not when you go to work 40 hours a week to maintain and support the fans which blow east.
So the clear similarity is that both parties will happily take your money with or without your consent. At the end of the day that's all that matters. Any differences between the two parties are completely irrelevant. When it comes time to pay rent, or pay bills, or try to build my savings to get out of debt there's only one thing that matters: who the hell is taking all of my money?
The point is that advice like this encourages two patterns of behavior:
1) Like mail-in rebates a good portion of the tactic relies on the fact that many people will simply not find it worth their time/trouble to bother pursuing the claim. A good portion of people will take the first couple of steps and then find that other things in life demand more attention. Eventually the claim period expires or the person simply doesn't feel like devoting effort to it. This is unacceptable. It allows corporate criminals to get away by doing little more than using their superior economic position to make the retribution process tedious. Creating tedium is the best defense against someone seeking compensation for wrongdoing. Time passes, people move on. With this type of system the criminal is allowed to endlessly continue on with their pursuits.
2) It sets a precedent for future infractions. Today it's system monitoring software on a CD, tomorrow it's the black box monitor in the car, the next day it's mandatory spy cams in subsidized housing, the next day it's a legal right for property owners to install spy cams in their rental properties. Every step of the way there will be consumer backlash, and every step of the way the courts are supporting a system which allows the violators to say,"Oh. Sorry about that. Just give us a minute to assess your arguments and figure out how we can pass legislation to get around them."
The criminals are being allowed to pass laws by which their particular crimes can be argued to be legal while at the same time passing laws which legally criminalize people who are doing nothing wrong.
Typically the EFF seems to be on the right course but, in this case, the EFF is promoting the idea that a major corporation can force its will on the consumers preemptively and then, when the consumers revolt, all they have to do is say,"Oh. Sorry 'bout that. Here's a lollipop. No go away."
There needs to be a clear signal. What we're seeing here is just a buyout.
There's not much left of the Constitutional basis of anything that the Feds do these days. Political pressure has led the Supreme Court to grant its blessing to the near complete nullification of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the near complete expansion of the definition of interstate commerce and the duties of the president.
We might as well be living in a nation run by a cartel that only keeps a thin flimsy veil of freedom for the sake of PR and morale.
> One of them in particular, who works at the Pentagon now, is about > the biggest ditz/boof I've ever met, but is a great climber and > perky enough to get promotions just on her smile.
I think I know the one you're talking about and it's not just her. Have you seen the shared network drives at military contractors? TS clearance my ass. The amount of potentially damaging information which I could access just by casually browsing the shared drives was disturbing. The only requisite for a TS clearance is that a person was sheltered enough to always have a fallback in case everything else went to crap. Some of the people walking around were truly tough old-school military types who had seen the rough side of hopelessness but even they still had mother military to take care of them.
Security clearances have less to do with security and more to do with social selection. Since I'm not really interested in endearing myself to someone without reciprocation I was easily deselected. It's the ultra-secretive people who don't fit in easily because they're not apt to play suckup to the fellow above them. The people who fit in easily are more likely to flap their mouths about things that they shouldn't be. FItting in, however, is more a requisite for a security clearance than actual security.
We used to write fully functional terminal programs, with file transfer and screen capture, in less than 40k. Most BIOSs have plenty of room for a 40k insertion.
Additionally, I offer up my FIC PA-2013 mobo as an example. The user's manual clearly displays BIOS screens with hardware temperature sensors. If I pull the processor chip I can see the mobo traces and the solder pad clearly labelled "LM75". The very first time I powered on that mobo I had a BIOS screen for hardware temperature sensing. The CD which shipped with the BIOS had a BIOS upgrade which was necessary to prevent BSOD in Windows. After applying the BIOS upgrade I no longer have any temperature sensing in BIOS and, even under Linux with the proper modules enabled/installed, there is absolutely no sign of LM75 lmsensor function. There is not a single BIOS revision available through the FIC website which, when flashed, restores the original LM75 functionality.
Makes me wonder where that code went and what it's been replaced with...
> Not everything is a conspiracy. In fact, very few things are.
On the contrary... most things are a conspiracy perpetuated by people looking to take advantage of others. There's a reason why the only truly effective troll for a conspiracy theorist is ridicule. If conspiracy theorists could be beaten with facts they would be. The facts, however, are in favor of the conspiracy theorists.
If someone says to you,"THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!" chances are that they're in on it and hiding something.
According to the real Constitution state laws are supposed to supersede federal laws. Not that this has ever stopped the feds from being draconian in the past but it is a point.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US we have a better end-run around that sort of thing. We just place unreasonable goals and expectations on our employees, underpay them, and ride them as hard as we can. Then when they begin to come apart at the seams (and begin to manifest the personality traits of someone who's being driven to the edge of their sanity) we can label them as underperforming, or bad behavior, or anti-social. If they don't acquiesce to the subsequent managerial flogging we can then terminate them. The company documentation will, of course, read "behavioral issues".
No. We don't fire on a whim. What we do is create the situation and then blame the victim.
I've risked my life to promote them many more times than they've ever even thought about risking so much as their toenail to save me.
The only time they ever put themselves in danger is when their job depends on it. In all other situations they seek out the easiest possible prey.
> law enforcement (the REAL good guys, in case you didn't know)
I think you meant,"The village idiots who can be made to follow the rules set by the bigger village idiots without thinking about it."
> When I was 14 I was inducted into the CIA to secret undercover
> work that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union
You too, huh? Maybe we were part of the same group. At age 15 (in 1991) I participated in a program called People to People: Initiative for Understanding. We were 30 high school students from Milwaukee, WI area schools who spent 30 days in the USSR to learn about their culture and the people there. Our trip started in Sochi (where I got drunk for the first time on Stoli with two Russian guys staying in the same hotel), Rostov (where one of the girls on the trip got laid with the Russian "host" who was probably about 19-20 years old), Kiev (where I toured with a really cool kid named Vova and his girlfriend), one other city (forget its name... O-something?), Leningrad (which had recently been back-renamed St. Petersburg), and Moscow (where our trip was cut short and limited to two days in Moscow, ostensibly because of the coming revolution). We were hustled through Moscow due to "time constraints". It was only after we returned to the US that we learned, 30 days later, that all hell was set to break loose in Moscow and that's more probably why they rushed the trip.
The joke in our group was always that we were sent to Russia to instigate the revolution.
If Gore had gotten in we'd be in the same position, more or less. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan but we'd be somewhere doing something that would cost us and our economy just as much. Could Gore have stopped 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. While he may have appointed different members to his cabinet the same bs infighting would have been going on in the intelligence agencies. Could Gore have stopped the .com bubble? Not even close. The Democrats were drooling over the prospect that every one of their children was going to become an internet billionaire overnight. Could Kerry have stopped the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. After 9/11 the media would have played their hand much the same way and the public outcry would've been much the same. The investor barons on Wall Street, as well as the vampires in the Federal Reserve, would have still been chomping at the bit for their money. The need for massive new spending bills (as a veil to funnel cash back to the people who actually have the power to turn out the lights on the government) would still have been there. The economy would still suck.
No, as much as you would like to naively think that there would be a different outcome, you're wrong. Some of the finer details may have turned out differently but, in the end, the nation as a whole would still be saddled with a morose economy, sliding wages, and increased federal spending.
When you come to a fork in the road, take it. It doesn't make any difference. The root of the problem is that the federal government has far overstepped its legitimate purpose... and no amount of Democrat vs. Republic dog'n'pony show is going to change that.
Growing up in urban WI you could get a paper route at age 12 (if you grew up in the days before they went to primarily adult motor carriers). My parents took it one step further. When my older brother turned 12 they had him sign up for a paper route and then commanded me that I would help him deliver. When I turned 11, 7 months later, they said "close enough", had my older brother sign up for a second paper route, had him go and get the papers, and then I would meet him a block away to take over for one of them. When I was 12 I could officially take over the first route. At 16 the paper route wasn't enough (for them) and I was ordered to start working at the local McD's as well.
I filed my first tax return at age 13 and haven't gotten a dime back in unemployment since (30 now).
I work(ed) around many wealthy families at my previous employer. In the 40s the trend for parents to bluster about their kids was the military. In the 50s and 60s the trend was the football team. In the 70s, 80s, and early 90s it was all about which colleges they could get into and the size of the family SUV. In the last part of the 90s and into the 00s it seems that the parents are one-upping each other with what sort of business ventures their children can get into. The people I worked with had children as young as 15 who were: movie producers (with offers from major studios), MMORPG game writers (with offers from game producers), day traders (to the tune of tens of thousands in profit), and database consultants (with small company contracts). The bottom line was, though, none of those kids could have even come close to doing what they did without the several thousand dollars' investment from their parents and the parents' willingness to stand back and give the kids room to pursue the ideas rather than hounding them to get some part time job at the local restaraunt.
I don't mean to take away from the fellow who's created Zoomr. More power to him and my hat's off to him. Let's stop short of automatically giving him an adult measure of respect, though. He wouldn't have been able to do what he did if he'd been spending his 5 evenings/week after school bagging groceries. Let's not start flogging ourselves remorsefully over wasted youth. The bottom line is opportunity--which most of us never really have.
Addendum:
Unless that malice carries significant financial gain with it.
Who said I failed? I gave my assessment of the process. The process is for crap. People with TS clearances seem to have this need to polish their own egos and, in doing so, they give out more information than they should. People with secret clearances can be just as vindictive and petty as any 16-year old working in McDonald's. It's completely ignorant to think that the screening process has anything to do with security. I worked shoulder to shoulder with people who, with TS clearances, would happily part with several thousand dollars if their cat had a hangnail. What would they be willing to give up should their children get kidnapped or their family threatened? The only thing that the cleared people had in common was that they always had some financial support system backing them. Beyond that their concept of security was about as genuine as someone living in Disneyland talking about their heroics fighting off the Pirates of the Caribbean. All talk but it was obvious that, should they ever have to choose between the good life and any sort of real hardship, they'd happily sell whatever they know to preserve their positions.
I have no axe to grind. I'm telling you what I could find on shared drives available to anyone in the company--even the Manpower temp lab techs who don't need clearances.
There is another way to look at the closeness of the election: random chance. Given a choice between "0" and "1", where the outcome doesn't really matter, the 0:1 ratio will end up close to 50:50. The issues are non-issues, the outcome of the candidate makes no difference, there's no surprise that voters who only take interest in the topic once every four years when it's plastered all over the news turned up a near equal split.
We might as well have asked people to cast a vote for up vs. down in a blind trial.
Been saddled with too many jobs where I get pushed into a corner, loaded with completely unreasonable goals, been blocked at every angle by the management when trying to meet those goals, and then been pushed out the door. Maybe I'm the only one treated this way. It's been my experience that promotions and advancement are best modelled as a clique. If you weren't selected to be in the clique when you walked in the door then there's no chance.
Hey... feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a job where the management gives me the tools I need to meet the goals they set. Show me a job where I can put in two years of outstanding performance and be able to ask for a raise without getting the usual,"You should be lucky just to have a job!" So far the only experience that I've had is the same that American colonists received when they were employed in the British military: happy to have you here, don't expect any recognition or thanks, if you ask for so much as a glass of water you'll be derided as a malcontent.
I don't burn out but it's been demonstrated to me over and over that burning out is what is expected of me. If I don't acquiesce to burning out then I get chased out the door. "You will submit to failure or else we will make you fail."
Nice.
Pretty much. If you haven't been given the privelege of the connections and influence that it takes to do anything really successful by age 30 you can look forward to one of several things: 1) being a corporate grunt making just enough to squeak by with a 3% raise every year and maybe a promotion when you're 45, 2) being homeless, 3) suicide.
> I'd rather choose the theif who's trying to get enough money to help put his son/daughter through college
As a result the offspring of the thief will always get a better education and have a better starting point than your own children. Your children will be doomed to an existence that is pleasant only so long as the offspring of the thieves are sufficiently preoccupied with other entertainment.
I'm all for cooperating and getting along and accepting that there will always be someone who has it better. I have no problem accepting that I have a place in society and that place may not necessarily be at the top rung. However, the way I see it, the siphoning going on has reached an unacceptable percentage. It has reached the point where it's better to tell the thief to go get fscked than to give in willingly.
Every once in a while a regime reaches the point of completely inexcuseable self-serving greed and treachery. I feel that the political system here in the US has reached that point... about 130-140 years ago. The majority of the population has had it just good enough to be able to ignore the infractions and keep moving on. Good for them. I'm not in that group. At some point I must've pissed off someone with really long arms because, no matter where I go, there's never a clear opportunity to get ahead--there are only thieves backed by legal mumbo-jumbo with authority enforced by people who don't know any better.
> if people can not be bothered to make the little effort to vote
Give it up. You can't change the east wind by pissing to the west on election day. Especially not when you go to work 40 hours a week to maintain and support the fans which blow east.
So the clear similarity is that both parties will happily take your money with or without your consent. At the end of the day that's all that matters. Any differences between the two parties are completely irrelevant. When it comes time to pay rent, or pay bills, or try to build my savings to get out of debt there's only one thing that matters: who the hell is taking all of my money?
I read the headline, I came to the forum, and "EULA" is the first thing I searched for.
The point is that advice like this encourages two patterns of behavior:
1) Like mail-in rebates a good portion of the tactic relies on the fact that many people will simply not find it worth their time/trouble to bother pursuing the claim. A good portion of people will take the first couple of steps and then find that other things in life demand more attention. Eventually the claim period expires or the person simply doesn't feel like devoting effort to it. This is unacceptable. It allows corporate criminals to get away by doing little more than using their superior economic position to make the retribution process tedious. Creating tedium is the best defense against someone seeking compensation for wrongdoing. Time passes, people move on. With this type of system the criminal is allowed to endlessly continue on with their pursuits.
2) It sets a precedent for future infractions. Today it's system monitoring software on a CD, tomorrow it's the black box monitor in the car, the next day it's mandatory spy cams in subsidized housing, the next day it's a legal right for property owners to install spy cams in their rental properties. Every step of the way there will be consumer backlash, and every step of the way the courts are supporting a system which allows the violators to say,"Oh. Sorry about that. Just give us a minute to assess your arguments and figure out how we can pass legislation to get around them."
The criminals are being allowed to pass laws by which their particular crimes can be argued to be legal while at the same time passing laws which legally criminalize people who are doing nothing wrong.
Typically the EFF seems to be on the right course but, in this case, the EFF is promoting the idea that a major corporation can force its will on the consumers preemptively and then, when the consumers revolt, all they have to do is say,"Oh. Sorry 'bout that. Here's a lollipop. No go away."
There needs to be a clear signal. What we're seeing here is just a buyout.
There's not much left of the Constitutional basis of anything that the Feds do these days. Political pressure has led the Supreme Court to grant its blessing to the near complete nullification of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the near complete expansion of the definition of interstate commerce and the duties of the president.
We might as well be living in a nation run by a cartel that only keeps a thin flimsy veil of freedom for the sake of PR and morale.
> One of them in particular, who works at the Pentagon now, is about
> the biggest ditz/boof I've ever met, but is a great climber and
> perky enough to get promotions just on her smile.
I think I know the one you're talking about and it's not just her. Have you seen the shared network drives at military contractors? TS clearance my ass. The amount of potentially damaging information which I could access just by casually browsing the shared drives was disturbing. The only requisite for a TS clearance is that a person was sheltered enough to always have a fallback in case everything else went to crap. Some of the people walking around were truly tough old-school military types who had seen the rough side of hopelessness but even they still had mother military to take care of them.
Security clearances have less to do with security and more to do with social selection. Since I'm not really interested in endearing myself to someone without reciprocation I was easily deselected. It's the ultra-secretive people who don't fit in easily because they're not apt to play suckup to the fellow above them. The people who fit in easily are more likely to flap their mouths about things that they shouldn't be. FItting in, however, is more a requisite for a security clearance than actual security.
Truly a back-asswards system.
We used to write fully functional terminal programs, with file transfer and screen capture, in less than 40k. Most BIOSs have plenty of room for a 40k insertion.
Additionally, I offer up my FIC PA-2013 mobo as an example. The user's manual clearly displays BIOS screens with hardware temperature sensors. If I pull the processor chip I can see the mobo traces and the solder pad clearly labelled "LM75". The very first time I powered on that mobo I had a BIOS screen for hardware temperature sensing. The CD which shipped with the BIOS had a BIOS upgrade which was necessary to prevent BSOD in Windows. After applying the BIOS upgrade I no longer have any temperature sensing in BIOS and, even under Linux with the proper modules enabled/installed, there is absolutely no sign of LM75 lmsensor function. There is not a single BIOS revision available through the FIC website which, when flashed, restores the original LM75 functionality.
Makes me wonder where that code went and what it's been replaced with...
> Not everything is a conspiracy. In fact, very few things are.
On the contrary... most things are a conspiracy perpetuated by people looking to take advantage of others. There's a reason why the only truly effective troll for a conspiracy theorist is ridicule. If conspiracy theorists could be beaten with facts they would be. The facts, however, are in favor of the conspiracy theorists.
If someone says to you,"THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!" chances are that they're in on it and hiding something.
I guess I'm not seeing how this NJ bill would be a violation of the Constitution since it's not being passed by Congress.
According to the real Constitution state laws are supposed to supersede federal laws. Not that this has ever stopped the feds from being draconian in the past but it is a point.
Too bad they cost so damn much.