> Info from the Department of Pulling Numbers from my Ass for the Purpose of an Analogy.
I bow to you, sir. Obviously, you have escaped beheading at the king's order by teaching the donkey to talk. And even done extra credit by teaching it statistics and numerical analysis.
As you mention "undercover" specifically, I have to think you are thinking of criminals (prior to their harassing, that is) in particular doing the threatening. What makes you think that organized crime does not keep such information, specifically for the purposes of identifying cops that are working undercover?
What this decision is doing, is keeping the *random* crazies and disorganized criminals from harassing the police.
> Science explains the "how", when you derive it from other things we often say "why". But if you want turtles all the way down, there's no "why", no reason the universe is this way and not some other way. It's purely descriptive of the way it is.
Yep. But as you begin to see the next turtle down, you get a better description of the turtle you are clambering over. We get "how"s in the process of explaining the "why"s.
So what you propose is to shove a sales tax down our (Oregon's) throat so you can keep your state income tax free. If you (Tennessee) swapped from sales tax to income tax, you wouldn't be having this discussion.
Oregon has many times rejected a sales tax, largely because the proposal never includes doing away with income tax. Once you allow a tax scheme to be instituted, government has a vested interest in keeping it going.
With income tax, you catch the income as it is coming in to the citizen. With sales tax, you catch the income as it is going out from the citizen. "Use tax" is a bandaid meant to try and recapture that portion of tax that residents spend out-of-state.
Since that other state naturally charges sales tax of its own, you have the choice of either not buying out of state, ignoring "Use tax", or getting taxed twice.
Guess which solution most people choose. Don't come to me, crying "Use tax" unless you also are going to defend me against "foreign" sales taxes.
Unless you're a female monkey (or a primate reproduction researcher), your corner monkey is not creating a marketable product. That makes poor C.M. every bit the useless wanker as the two posters you were criticizing.
Consider slow scan TV. Actual data transmission. In some cases, indisputably digital.
Morse code. Text encoded in an arguably digital form. Examples of computer generated morse go back to at least the '80s, possibly earlier; analog generation cannot be a factor.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
In this analogy, you are also trusting every contractor and parts supplier involved in building the house.
On the plus side, this 'house' does not (by itself) deteriorate over time. The counterpart is instead that you have to view the house (and its components) against a steadily increasing list of possible defects, any one of which could cause a critical loss of housing.
And in most cases, the 'foundation' (from the OS down to the processor's microcode) is typically not under your control.
Might go after their business license, their name, and any trademarks/service marks they hold. Once you hold the trademark/name, you can sue them for doing business with your name.
If they're not incorporated and still doing business, you might be able to go after them (or sic the state on them) for that.
All this requires work, and probably an inventive attorney. But it might be worth it in satisfaction.
Find someone in South Carolina to act as your proxy, or go on a legal-venture vacation, and pay them a physical visit.
They rent from somewhere. If you cannot get their bank account directly, you should be able to make legal inquiries of the people they rent facilities from.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
So, you put your message into the DNA. Hope you retrieve it within a few generations. Plants and animals change. DNA gets exchanged and mutated.
These changes could be considered bit errors, making "DNA encryption" and "DNA encoding' kinda futile. And good on ya if your message and someone else's get mixed up in the field.
Oh, and here's another thought... What if those "dead DNA areas" where you stored your message are simply DNA that required some exotic condition to express? You message might be lost if the plants all die off. Or worse, your message might be "RUN IN TERROR, Citizens of Earth! Our flesh-eating KUDZU will kill you all!"
So... a bank card that worked in ATM machines, but did not work for POS purchases? Your bank was not able to offer a solution to this that worked for you?
Plan 1) create a new account with your bank. Get a card on it, but make sure that "overdraft protection" is revoked. Limit the funds in the account. Transfer new funds as necessary via secure method (say, live teller). Strictly audit the account so you don't get denial charges. Promptly report any fraudulent activity.
Plan 2) get a disposable or one-use credit card. Repeat as necessary. Best you look those up yourself than rely on me, as I don't hold with credit cards much in the first place.
Either way, I wouldn't recommend you attach significant excess funds to an account with a card. That includes using a "savings account" as overdraft protection.
That sounds so very corporate of them. Someone works around their rules and provides a superior product. All they see is the "someone worked around their rules" part.
The only consolation is that "works around the rules" may itself be an indicator of "capable of building superior products".
I wonder if you could use the theory that the information isn't Borders', it's yours - and by breaking the contract under which it was provided, Borders no longer has a right to it.
They are documenting that your car was there. Extrapolating from that that you were there is natural and in many cases would require you to then provide proof that you weren't.
That is, using the car's location either to frame someone, or to provide a believable alibi.... which I submit is closer to wireless router access evidence than DNA evidence.
> Failure to detect a threat does not mean if was unsuccessful at finding a threat.
What you said there sounds like you lost track of what you were saying halfway through the sentence.
Do you mean: Just because they did not detect a threat does not mean they deterred no threats (IE they performed a service)? I grant this is possible, but by its nature unverifiable.
Or are you trying to say that they found threats that they did not detect? That is, like the Keystone Kops, they stumbled across things in an unintended fashion?
> there is no way to increase the bandwidth of the [radio] frequency.
To make that true, you need to add "without also changing the protocol used." The speed of information exchange depends directly on the protocol. For a trivial example, consider modems over phone lines. By changing the protocol used (and negotiating up/down to a mutually understood protocol), various information exchange speeds (300, 1200, 9600, 19200, etc) are achieved.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying it has fat mines vs fat ranches?
> Info from the Department of Pulling Numbers from my Ass for the Purpose of an Analogy.
I bow to you, sir. Obviously, you have escaped beheading at the king's order by teaching the donkey to talk. And even done extra credit by teaching it statistics and numerical analysis.
Do you have many students looking up your home address and sending you letters threatening the lives of you and your family?
As you mention "undercover" specifically, I have to think you are thinking of criminals (prior to their harassing, that is) in particular doing the threatening. What makes you think that organized crime does not keep such information, specifically for the purposes of identifying cops that are working undercover?
What this decision is doing, is keeping the *random* crazies and disorganized criminals from harassing the police.
> Science explains the "how", when you derive it from other things we often say "why". But if you want turtles all the way down, there's no "why", no reason the universe is this way and not some other way. It's purely descriptive of the way it is.
Yep. But as you begin to see the next turtle down, you get a better description of the turtle you are clambering over. We get "how"s in the process of explaining the "why"s.
"How" begets engineering.
"Why" begets science.
So what you propose is to shove a sales tax down our (Oregon's) throat so you can keep your state income tax free. If you (Tennessee) swapped from sales tax to income tax, you wouldn't be having this discussion.
Oregon has many times rejected a sales tax, largely because the proposal never includes doing away with income tax. Once you allow a tax scheme to be instituted, government has a vested interest in keeping it going.
With income tax, you catch the income as it is coming in to the citizen. With sales tax, you catch the income as it is going out from the citizen. "Use tax" is a bandaid meant to try and recapture that portion of tax that residents spend out-of-state.
Since that other state naturally charges sales tax of its own, you have the choice of either not buying out of state, ignoring "Use tax", or getting taxed twice.
Guess which solution most people choose. Don't come to me, crying "Use tax" unless you also are going to defend me against "foreign" sales taxes.
My question then becomes: how much will it cost to distribute the money? (How much cost to administer the tax collection system?)
If (admin cost > revenue collected) it's a net loss.
Unless you're a female monkey (or a primate reproduction researcher), your corner monkey is not creating a marketable product. That makes poor C.M. every bit the useless wanker as the two posters you were criticizing.
Consider slow scan TV. Actual data transmission. In some cases, indisputably digital.
Morse code. Text encoded in an arguably digital form. Examples of computer generated morse go back to at least the '80s, possibly earlier; analog generation cannot be a factor.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
Zero.
Citation, please.
In this analogy, you are also trusting every contractor and parts supplier involved in building the house.
On the plus side, this 'house' does not (by itself) deteriorate over time. The counterpart is instead that you have to view the house (and its components) against a steadily increasing list of possible defects, any one of which could cause a critical loss of housing.
And in most cases, the 'foundation' (from the OS down to the processor's microcode) is typically not under your control.
1) "require" a telephone number for a product or service.
2) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3035ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3035ih.pdf page 3 line 8:
A person who provides a telephone number as a means of contact evidences consent under this paragraph.
3) profit!
You can't opt out.
Might go after their business license, their name, and any trademarks/service marks they hold. Once you hold the trademark/name, you can sue them for doing business with your name.
If they're not incorporated and still doing business, you might be able to go after them (or sic the state on them) for that.
All this requires work, and probably an inventive attorney. But it might be worth it in satisfaction.
Find someone in South Carolina to act as your proxy, or go on a legal-venture vacation, and pay them a physical visit.
They rent from somewhere. If you cannot get their bank account directly, you should be able to make legal inquiries of the people they rent facilities from.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
So, you put your message into the DNA. Hope you retrieve it within a few generations. Plants and animals change. DNA gets exchanged and mutated.
These changes could be considered bit errors, making "DNA encryption" and "DNA encoding' kinda futile. And good on ya if your message and someone else's get mixed up in the field.
Oh, and here's another thought... What if those "dead DNA areas" where you stored your message are simply DNA that required some exotic condition to express? You message might be lost if the plants all die off. Or worse, your message might be "RUN IN TERROR, Citizens of Earth! Our flesh-eating KUDZU will kill you all!"
So... a bank card that worked in ATM machines, but did not work for POS purchases? Your bank was not able to offer a solution to this that worked for you?
Not so much stuck, as failing in imagination.
Plan 1) create a new account with your bank. Get a card on it, but make sure that "overdraft protection" is revoked. Limit the funds in the account. Transfer new funds as necessary via secure method (say, live teller). Strictly audit the account so you don't get denial charges. Promptly report any fraudulent activity.
Plan 2) get a disposable or one-use credit card. Repeat as necessary. Best you look those up yourself than rely on me, as I don't hold with credit cards much in the first place.
Either way, I wouldn't recommend you attach significant excess funds to an account with a card. That includes using a "savings account" as overdraft protection.
That sounds so very corporate of them. Someone works around their rules and provides a superior product. All they see is the "someone worked around their rules" part.
The only consolation is that "works around the rules" may itself be an indicator of "capable of building superior products".
I wonder if you could use the theory that the information isn't Borders', it's yours - and by breaking the contract under which it was provided, Borders no longer has a right to it.
You are insufficiently paranoid.
They are documenting that your car was there. Extrapolating from that that you were there is natural and in many cases would require you to then provide proof that you weren't.
That is, using the car's location either to frame someone, or to provide a believable alibi. ... which I submit is closer to wireless router access evidence than DNA evidence.
The only thing novel in this article is (blah, blah, blah) with 3-d printers!
> Oh yeah, it has guns, too!
Rubber ball cannons. They don't count as "weapons" though.
> Failure to detect a threat does not mean if was unsuccessful at finding a threat.
What you said there sounds like you lost track of what you were saying halfway through the sentence.
Do you mean:
Just because they did not detect a threat does not mean they deterred no threats (IE they performed a service)? I grant this is possible, but by its nature unverifiable.
Or are you trying to say that they found threats that they did not detect? That is, like the Keystone Kops, they stumbled across things in an unintended fashion?
So what you're saying is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"?
> there is no way to increase the bandwidth of the [radio] frequency.
To make that true, you need to add "without also changing the protocol used." The speed of information exchange depends directly on the protocol. For a trivial example, consider modems over phone lines. By changing the protocol used (and negotiating up/down to a mutually understood protocol), various information exchange speeds (300, 1200, 9600, 19200, etc) are achieved.