The criminal law for most (all?) states includes language like "A person who knowingly possesses images...." Knowing you've got it is the key. This should be "intentionally." If a person at a party uses my computer to look at kiddie porn, and I catch him, am I not knowingly possessing said porn? IANAL, but my chances are better and risks fewer in just kicking his ass and trashing the HDD.
If you read the defense investigation report, it is revealed that the DIA (employer) spent about three hours investigating the laptop. All they did was copy the temporary internet files to another system for "analysis." It is not clear what took three hours with this folder full of illegal pornography.
The defense forensic investigator notes late in her report that when she copied everything but images from temporary internet files, her Avast AV went apeshit, and that the forensic machine experienced increasing ill-effects from viruses for the rest of the session. She expresses doubt that the anti virus program installed on the DIA investigator's machine was even functional.
Does your company sell v1agra or c1alis? Or the organic forms of these, or the "legit" ones from Canada? Then its green light. Otherwise, your company will be equated with these companies.
The dreaded I for one will not do business with Amazon, Buy.com and several minor companies specifically because I have received unsolicited (aka "partner") spam from them. I disapprove of the practice and will pay a couple of dollars to avoid companies who engage in it.
I would say the best argument against spamming is that it damages the brand. Sales reps can proudly claim that they are above their competitors in that "we do not spam."
It might be a better angle to subtly reveal that your competitor has leaked private information and that your company chose to take the high road by discarding it.
Also, don't die on this cross. Companies spam, as a rule.
Ugh, outside the flamewar:
I have seen the banner on thepiratebay.org while searching for, uh, legal downloads for uh, research. The banner link leads here: STOPPA FRA.
All players in WWII were involved in firebombing. This was a geeky plan to reduce allied risk in firebombing operations, and would likely have resulted in diminished civilian casualties.
While a structure fire is difficult to escape, an exploding bomb provides much larger a problem. Use of bats would actually be more humane in that it accomplishes infrastructure destruction while reducing the risk to individuals.
But thank you so much for your incendiary comment. I didn't mean to get you so fired up. Your flame seems to be pretty batty to me, and your point seems to have bombed. You can screech all you want but don't expect many to echo your sentiments. Your point is guano. A swing and a miss. /incendiary bat puns
Excellent point. Still, there isn't much sense in just leaving it up to the passengers. I think this proposal is ridiculous, but let us not discount entirely the handful of wise protocols implemented since the attack. This reeks of a delayed knee jerk reaction, a fishing expedition for technology that is presently impossible. Disable a plane without crashing it or opening an attack vector? Please.
As for disabling small boats, a well placed rifle shot or two ought to crack that nut... but boat passengers are generally not condemned to death upon engine failure the way that aircraft passengers are.
There was also the interesting case Project X-Ray, a plan that involved tiny timed incendiary devices attached to bats to be released over Japanese cities. The bats would be released at night from special "bat bombs," basically parachuting terraces loaded with bats, and would later roost in Japanese buildings, which were generally quite flammable. The development and use of the atomic bomb negated the need for the project, but an accidental release of armed bats burned many buildings near the development center in a botched test. A later test on a mock Japanese city showed promising results. The key was that the bats would be able to roost unnoticed and that widespread fires would become established before a response could be mounted, and that it required only a few planes to achieve a large area of effect.
Everybody hates a truck until...
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There is more to it for a handful of us. I commute in a 1996 2WD Ford F150 inline-6 300. It is a nice compromise for me as a daily driver because the inline-six gets pretty good mileage yet retains MASSIVE torque for towing and hauling. As a helpful person, I almost always stop for stranded people for problems ranging from flat tires to mud or snow entrapment. I keep rope, straps and chains as well as a jack and a set of tools in my truck. My in-laws laugh at me because I have a rotating orange strobe light mounted on it, but I would rather be laughed at then ironed out on the highway. Also, people automatically assume that you are important and/or belong when you have a flashing light on your truck. Cops wave you through and people pull over to let you by.
Friends and family that own gas-sipping little munchkin cars are constantly enlisting my services as a man who owns a functional truck. Whether they are moving, cleaning out a basement or hauling a load of firewood, they all know who to call... the man with the truck.
I also own a 1979 Ford Bronco with a 351m bored over 20 with a 850CFM Holley Truck Avenger carburetor, snorkel and smokestack sitting on DANA-60's, 36" SuperSwampers and air-auto-lockers, lifted etc., rigged for both plow and tow. It gets about six miles to the gallon. The floorboards are above the average knee, and if I am careful, I can drive it pretty much anywhere (got to watch out for little efficient cars). It is mainly a toy, A MONSTER TRUCK!1!11!!, but once again, it has special abilities that are needed:
We have had A LOT of HORRIBLE FLOODING here in Indiana, surpassing our record from 1913. DHS, National Guard, Marines, Coast Guard and every available resource have been chucked into the disaster maelstrom that is flooded Indiana. The nearest competition for my Bronco is a fire truck or a Caterpillar when it comes to submerged mobility. That big fat bastard gleefully contributed to global warming all the way down to Franklin, to Martinsville, and to rural points south as we teamed up to get people out of the water. Nobody can see your carbon footprint under five feet of water, septic runoff and synthetic flotsam. None of the people in the little bed of the bronco seemed to mind the CO2 streaming from my exhaust stack.
Everybody hates a truck owner, until:
(a) it snows a lot
(b) it floods
(c) they are moving
(d) they drive into a ditch
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car
My father also uses his powers and torques for good in his 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe. He was down there with me, in the muck, but his new-fangled electronics cannot withstand submergence. His next purchase will he the Tahoe Hybrid, which outperforms its predecessor in torque and horsepower. These new trucks cannot replace their predecessors, though, because they are too complex and fragile.
That said, any 4WD owner that does not use his extraordinary capability as part of the solution--is part of the problem. Soccer moms must die.
Some of the rudest drivers I have ever encountered were in munchkin hybrids. The rest of them were women driving SUVs.
16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This allows the legislature to directly levy taxes on the constituents of the states without the burden of considering the reprocussions. The removal of this amendment returns the taxation rights, constitutionally speaking, to the states, whose representatives in turn ratify the new taxation system bill. The bill includes specifically defined taxation rights for the federal government: a simple sales tax. Because this collection method is also independent of a census, it upholds the concept of fairness in taxation but returns the method of taxation to an easy to understand system.
In short, FairTax tosses out the complex, evadable and unequal 17,000 pages of the IRS tax code. Everyone keeps 100% of what they earn. On a regular cycle, already existing methods of payment deliver a "pre-bate" credit to every household, covering the calculated taxes they will pay on the basic necessities of life. Prices drop because the incredible embedded tax burden on domestic producers is alleviated. Domestic production is more competitive with foreign production because both are taxed in the same system. Black markets and foreign nationals now participate in the tax system. By saving and spending frugally, Americans can potentially reduce their tax rate to below 0%. On new goods only, a 23% sales tax is imposed. Used cars, used homes, used anything is not taxed. Keep in mind that income is not taxed one bit by the Imperial Federal Government in this plan, and the tax system participant is free to determine his own tax rate.
The key is that the current rate of taxation is printed on every receipt. When you see a price tag on the shelf: Video Card - $100, your receipt will say:
Video Card 1 @ -- $77.00
Fair Tax 23% -- $23.00
Total -- $100.00
There is more to it, including inherent compliance, company-to-company trades and more, but ultimately the plan is the single largest transfer of power from the government to the people in the history of the United States. It seriously stimulates the economy, adds foreign nationals and evaders to the tax base, and taps a much more stable source of taxation. Best of all, it is truly fair -- it is up to you to decide how much tax to pay, at last, and you no longer wonder how much tax you pay to the feds. April 15 is just another day.
Interesting. So AllTel was allowed to compete with Verizon, but in buying AllTel, Verizon will not be allowed to be a sole provider, and even worse will be forced to yield the turf to another competitor, who will then be their competitor for that area? Is this only for markets where only AllTel and Verizon exist? I can believe that the regulations would stipulate something so ridiculous, but it seems that all Verizon would have to do is to spin off something like "MontanaTel" in which to entrust the market, while holding a controlling interest. Also, the very fact that we're basically fresh out of CDMA providers providers makes the FCC the bad guy in this, in that ultimately it is their regulation that sticks it to the rural providers.
As an aside, we just had a major set of tornadoes rip through a rural area of my state, and the only provider that kept the network up was Verizon. Days later, power is still out 1/2 hour to my south, but they have kept the generators located at many towers fueled. The same was true a few years back when a tornado took out the grid to a large portion of my metro area... we were able to conduct business by having our lines forwarded to a few Verizon phones.
Thanks, and agreed. It seems that people fail to realize that there is no "capitalism rulebook" by which all free trade is conducted, and that the concept evolves and changes constantly with each free market experiment and each limitation imposed.
Your quote of the day: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators." --P. J. O'Rourke
Are people terminally stupid when it comes to cell phone technologies?
Yes, and about economics. Wireless phone service is a natural mono/oligopoly, just like wired connectivity in phone and cable, and energy, and many other services we buy. It is a question of favorable economy of scale, prior investment, knowledge and capability. The whole "Go start your own wireless company then" argument is asinine.
Furthermore, I don't consider the customer service of either company to be below average for wireless providers. I consider both to be well above average compared to most utilities and companies with call centers, speaking from my experience.
It is actually arrogance, and he is that good, and he wants a new benefactor. He does not intend for the benefactor to be either of these companies. Again... he is arrogant, but to me it looks like he has earned it.
He's already cleared a major legal inquisition, and he considers himself untouchable in the short term, and he is. This is not an application to Nagra, who hould never hire him. This is an application to everyone else. If I had interest in his special skills, I would contract him as a "consultant."
I would also contract an expert in the field of security threat mitigation, and have Bruce Willis detained./US Govt
Yeah, lets spend loads of money making sure nobody can crack our nut.
Then, we'll spend another load of money to make sure everyone knows we have grown an uncrackable nut.
We'll have checks at the doors, just to make sure nobody makes it in with a giant nutcracker, thus negating all traditional... HEY! WHO LET IN THE GIANT SQUIRREL? FUCK, HE IS CRACKING OUR NUTS!
Slashdot Mirror
The charges were dropped, deliberate point misser.
The criminal law for most (all?) states includes language like "A person who knowingly possesses images...." Knowing you've got it is the key. This should be "intentionally." If a person at a party uses my computer to look at kiddie porn, and I catch him, am I not knowingly possessing said porn? IANAL, but my chances are better and risks fewer in just kicking his ass and trashing the HDD.
If you read the defense investigation report, it is revealed that the DIA (employer) spent about three hours investigating the laptop. All they did was copy the temporary internet files to another system for "analysis." It is not clear what took three hours with this folder full of illegal pornography.
The defense forensic investigator notes late in her report that when she copied everything but images from temporary internet files, her Avast AV went apeshit, and that the forensic machine experienced increasing ill-effects from viruses for the rest of the session. She expresses doubt that the anti virus program installed on the DIA investigator's machine was even functional.
Does your company sell v1agra or c1alis? Or the organic forms of these, or the "legit" ones from Canada? Then its green light. Otherwise, your company will be equated with these companies.
The dreaded I for one will not do business with Amazon, Buy.com and several minor companies specifically because I have received unsolicited (aka "partner") spam from them. I disapprove of the practice and will pay a couple of dollars to avoid companies who engage in it.
I would say the best argument against spamming is that it damages the brand. Sales reps can proudly claim that they are above their competitors in that "we do not spam."
It might be a better angle to subtly reveal that your competitor has leaked private information and that your company chose to take the high road by discarding it.
Also, don't die on this cross. Companies spam, as a rule.
Ugh, outside the flamewar:
I have seen the banner on thepiratebay.org while searching for, uh, legal downloads for uh, research. The banner link leads here: STOPPA FRA.
It reminds me of when Sorourner was spotted.
The rover had circled back looking for its dying lander... very touching.
All players in WWII were involved in firebombing. This was a geeky plan to reduce allied risk in firebombing operations, and would likely have resulted in diminished civilian casualties.
/incendiary bat puns
While a structure fire is difficult to escape, an exploding bomb provides much larger a problem. Use of bats would actually be more humane in that it accomplishes infrastructure destruction while reducing the risk to individuals.
But thank you so much for your incendiary comment. I didn't mean to get you so fired up. Your flame seems to be pretty batty to me, and your point seems to have bombed. You can screech all you want but don't expect many to echo your sentiments. Your point is guano. A swing and a miss.
Now THAT is cool. The disturbing thing is the potential for an individual to carry such a device.
Excellent point. Still, there isn't much sense in just leaving it up to the passengers. I think this proposal is ridiculous, but let us not discount entirely the handful of wise protocols implemented since the attack. This reeks of a delayed knee jerk reaction, a fishing expedition for technology that is presently impossible. Disable a plane without crashing it or opening an attack vector? Please.
As for disabling small boats, a well placed rifle shot or two ought to crack that nut... but boat passengers are generally not condemned to death upon engine failure the way that aircraft passengers are.
I agree. Good thing nothing will ever come of this.
There was also the interesting case Project X-Ray, a plan that involved tiny timed incendiary devices attached to bats to be released over Japanese cities. The bats would be released at night from special "bat bombs," basically parachuting terraces loaded with bats, and would later roost in Japanese buildings, which were generally quite flammable. The development and use of the atomic bomb negated the need for the project, but an accidental release of armed bats burned many buildings near the development center in a botched test. A later test on a mock Japanese city showed promising results. The key was that the bats would be able to roost unnoticed and that widespread fires would become established before a response could be mounted, and that it required only a few planes to achieve a large area of effect.
There is more to it for a handful of us. I commute in a 1996 2WD Ford F150 inline-6 300. It is a nice compromise for me as a daily driver because the inline-six gets pretty good mileage yet retains MASSIVE torque for towing and hauling. As a helpful person, I almost always stop for stranded people for problems ranging from flat tires to mud or snow entrapment. I keep rope, straps and chains as well as a jack and a set of tools in my truck. My in-laws laugh at me because I have a rotating orange strobe light mounted on it, but I would rather be laughed at then ironed out on the highway. Also, people automatically assume that you are important and/or belong when you have a flashing light on your truck. Cops wave you through and people pull over to let you by.
Friends and family that own gas-sipping little munchkin cars are constantly enlisting my services as a man who owns a functional truck. Whether they are moving, cleaning out a basement or hauling a load of firewood, they all know who to call... the man with the truck.
I also own a 1979 Ford Bronco with a 351m bored over 20 with a 850CFM Holley Truck Avenger carburetor, snorkel and smokestack sitting on DANA-60's, 36" SuperSwampers and air-auto-lockers, lifted etc., rigged for both plow and tow. It gets about six miles to the gallon. The floorboards are above the average knee, and if I am careful, I can drive it pretty much anywhere (got to watch out for little efficient cars). It is mainly a toy, A MONSTER TRUCK!1!11!!, but once again, it has special abilities that are needed:
We have had A LOT of HORRIBLE FLOODING here in Indiana, surpassing our record from 1913. DHS, National Guard, Marines, Coast Guard and every available resource have been chucked into the disaster maelstrom that is flooded Indiana. The nearest competition for my Bronco is a fire truck or a Caterpillar when it comes to submerged mobility. That big fat bastard gleefully contributed to global warming all the way down to Franklin, to Martinsville, and to rural points south as we teamed up to get people out of the water. Nobody can see your carbon footprint under five feet of water, septic runoff and synthetic flotsam. None of the people in the little bed of the bronco seemed to mind the CO2 streaming from my exhaust stack.
Everybody hates a truck owner, until:
(a) it snows a lot
(b) it floods
(c) they are moving
(d) they drive into a ditch
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car
My father also uses his powers and torques for good in his 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe. He was down there with me, in the muck, but his new-fangled electronics cannot withstand submergence. His next purchase will he the Tahoe Hybrid, which outperforms its predecessor in torque and horsepower. These new trucks cannot replace their predecessors, though, because they are too complex and fragile.
That said, any 4WD owner that does not use his extraordinary capability as part of the solution--is part of the problem. Soccer moms must die.
Some of the rudest drivers I have ever encountered were in munchkin hybrids. The rest of them were women driving SUVs.
It is a sales tax.
16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This allows the legislature to directly levy taxes on the constituents of the states without the burden of considering the reprocussions. The removal of this amendment returns the taxation rights, constitutionally speaking, to the states, whose representatives in turn ratify the new taxation system bill. The bill includes specifically defined taxation rights for the federal government: a simple sales tax. Because this collection method is also independent of a census, it upholds the concept of fairness in taxation but returns the method of taxation to an easy to understand system.
In short, FairTax tosses out the complex, evadable and unequal 17,000 pages of the IRS tax code. Everyone keeps 100% of what they earn. On a regular cycle, already existing methods of payment deliver a "pre-bate" credit to every household, covering the calculated taxes they will pay on the basic necessities of life. Prices drop because the incredible embedded tax burden on domestic producers is alleviated. Domestic production is more competitive with foreign production because both are taxed in the same system. Black markets and foreign nationals now participate in the tax system. By saving and spending frugally, Americans can potentially reduce their tax rate to below 0%. On new goods only, a 23% sales tax is imposed. Used cars, used homes, used anything is not taxed. Keep in mind that income is not taxed one bit by the Imperial Federal Government in this plan, and the tax system participant is free to determine his own tax rate.
The key is that the current rate of taxation is printed on every receipt. When you see a price tag on the shelf: Video Card - $100, your receipt will say:
Video Card 1 @ -- $77.00
Fair Tax 23% -- $23.00
Total -- $100.00
There is more to it, including inherent compliance, company-to-company trades and more, but ultimately the plan is the single largest transfer of power from the government to the people in the history of the United States. It seriously stimulates the economy, adds foreign nationals and evaders to the tax base, and taps a much more stable source of taxation. Best of all, it is truly fair -- it is up to you to decide how much tax to pay, at last, and you no longer wonder how much tax you pay to the feds. April 15 is just another day.
Interesting. So AllTel was allowed to compete with Verizon, but in buying AllTel, Verizon will not be allowed to be a sole provider, and even worse will be forced to yield the turf to another competitor, who will then be their competitor for that area? Is this only for markets where only AllTel and Verizon exist? I can believe that the regulations would stipulate something so ridiculous, but it seems that all Verizon would have to do is to spin off something like "MontanaTel" in which to entrust the market, while holding a controlling interest. Also, the very fact that we're basically fresh out of CDMA providers providers makes the FCC the bad guy in this, in that ultimately it is their regulation that sticks it to the rural providers.
As an aside, we just had a major set of tornadoes rip through a rural area of my state, and the only provider that kept the network up was Verizon. Days later, power is still out 1/2 hour to my south, but they have kept the generators located at many towers fueled. The same was true a few years back when a tornado took out the grid to a large portion of my metro area... we were able to conduct business by having our lines forwarded to a few Verizon phones.
This is not so much a merger proposal as it is a buyout. Find me a regional carrier with $28 billion capital and I'll eat my cellphone.
Thanks, and agreed. It seems that people fail to realize that there is no "capitalism rulebook" by which all free trade is conducted, and that the concept evolves and changes constantly with each free market experiment and each limitation imposed.
Your quote of the day:
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators." --P. J. O'Rourke
There are not many people who prefer Sprint to Verizon.
Are people terminally stupid when it comes to cell phone technologies?
Yes, and about economics. Wireless phone service is a natural mono/oligopoly, just like wired connectivity in phone and cable, and energy, and many other services we buy. It is a question of favorable economy of scale, prior investment, knowledge and capability. The whole "Go start your own wireless company then" argument is asinine.
Furthermore, I don't consider the customer service of either company to be below average for wireless providers. I consider both to be well above average compared to most utilities and companies with call centers, speaking from my experience.
1) (^script)
/he has figured out "???"
/else go fail
2) itsatrap =>(be Christopher Tarnovsky) + (publicity)
3) ??? = (Christopher Tarnovsky's plan)
4) Profit
It is actually arrogance, and he is that good, and he wants a new benefactor. He does not intend for the benefactor to be either of these companies. Again... he is arrogant, but to me it looks like he has earned it.
He's already cleared a major legal inquisition, and he considers himself untouchable in the short term, and he is. This is not an application to Nagra, who hould never hire him. This is an application to everyone else. If I had interest in his special skills, I would contract him as a "consultant."
/US Govt
I would also contract an expert in the field of security threat mitigation, and have Bruce Willis detained.
Yeah, lets spend loads of money making sure nobody can crack our nut.
Then, we'll spend another load of money to make sure everyone knows we have grown an uncrackable nut.
We'll have checks at the doors, just to make sure nobody makes it in with a giant nutcracker, thus negating all traditional... HEY! WHO LET IN THE GIANT SQUIRREL? FUCK, HE IS CRACKING OUR NUTS!
Who am I? I am number 24601.
alt.nancy.kerrigan.why.why.why