118 posts • joined 30 Aug 2007
The driver should have seen that a mile off and braked, if you're used to rural locations you learn to avoid deer!
To be honest, I'd question if they failed to stop because of the Camera on the root perhaps they had concerns about it if they performed an emergency stop?
Add 'em to list 99!!!!
This is getting silly...
Exactly HOW is it an invasion of privacy to take photos of a street?? I just don't get it. If there is something you don't want people to see, i'd suggest you refrain from doing it in the street, especially in front of cars with bloody great cameras on 6' tripods on the roof!
I mean ANYONE could walk down the street for ANY purpose!!!!
It's all a waste of time.
To be honest, the security people are so quick to tell us what they've done to "insure your safety" they actually do more harm than good. They set out their stall for all the terrorists to see, so people can plan exactly how to get around the measures in place. A lot of it is about reassuring passengers, because if someone wants to bring down a plane, they probably will (sooner or later).
It would help if the security staff were generally alert, motivated and smart enough to understand what they're trying to achieve, rather than just go through the motions. I can think of few things duller, though, than their jobs. And boredom is a major problem. After you've spent the first 2 weeks watching briefcases on a conveyor and asking people to take off their wristwatch before walking through a scanner, don't you think YOU would be bored - and your dedication would start to falter? I'm afraid we're up against human nature there. The fact is that after a month of doing repetative, dull work and being given the distinct impression you're resented by the very people you're supposed to be protecting and paid sod-all for this you're going to start to take the view that the last million bags contained a grand total of NO bombs, so the chances of you finding one now and practically...Zero....
Sorry. But you cannot blame the security drones. They're just being human.
Doesn't surprise me
As an ex-fuzz myself, I'm not surprised. The office doesn't actually have any rights to seize the film off the man. If he seriously suspected that the chap was taking pictures of "young people" then he should have nicked him and investigated the suspected offence. Interviewing the chap, viewing the photos and bailing him pending CPS advice would be the way to go.
What we've got here is a copper throwing his weight around. Then when he's questioned about it and realises he acted without legal authority he came up with a bunch of flannel about suspecting the man is a paedo in an attempt to intimidate him into dropping the matter because mud sticks.
Tell me. Do the Police routinely let suspected kiddie-fiddlers go???? The inference from the officers explanation of his actions is that he does.
Another one for the IPCC
Considering the animal had only caused 2 minor wounds to the Police and nobody else, i'm surprised they saw fit to shoot the animal. Police guns are there to be used as a last resort when not doing so would put the public or the officer in serious peril. Not when your dog van is more than ten minutes away and you can't be arsed to wait. The level of justification required to fire a round is very high, and I personally believe the officer responsible (and their section Sgt) should be removed from duty until the IPCC resolves that the criteria for shooting had been met and that the officer had no practicable alternative. Should the IPCC fail to determine this, then the officer(s) responsible should be charged under firearm legislation, and prosecuted.
I'd question the quality of the officer's training. Anyone who'd actually been fully trained on Tasers would know that they usually don't work against dogs - in fact it's the exception when they do and Taser Corp point this out in their formal training. Pepper-sprary (Captor/Parva) will work on dogs in terms of driving them off, as will a fire extinguisher. The Met definately DO have access to tranquiliser guns and the specialist vets needed to use them.
What's the use??
Personally i'd just give them a thin-client on the laptop (or desktop) and store everything centrally in a hoofin' great server behind several feet on concrete, steel and armed guards. Then GIVE them strong passwords they CANNOT change and make it a "revocation of computer privaledges" offence to write it down or give it to anyone else. You can't do much more than that.
Where are the NYPD?
Why bother to clean NYC, if you clean up all the dirt and scum there won't be much left holding the place together!
If they can run over a dog, they can run over a person - especially a child. The driver clearly wasn't paying adequate attention - or purposely ran the dog down. Also the machine clearly had it's brushes down so was cleaning at the time, so wouldn't have been moving fast. So why didn't the driver stop???
What I cannot work out is i'd expect a dog to hear and see it coming and get out the way. Going to cost the NY DoS serious cash, i'd guess. And one hell of a lot of goodwill.
You're better off not bothering to Encrypt stuff these days. Anything you can actually get your hands on isn't going to work well enough to keep any Government dept interested out for longer than a few moments.
But trying to find the emails they're looking for in the torrent of scams, jokes, viral greetings and all the rest of the millions of things than generate email traffic now days is next to impossible!
Encryption probably just draws attention to the email in question and makes it more (not less) likely to be read.
Are pillows now going to be proscibed under offensive weapons legislation?
Schedule 1 Pillows. foam and soft particle-filled pillows, not exceeding 500grammes in weight.
Schedule 2 Pillows. Duck and other feather pillows, not exceeding 750grammes in weight.
Schedule 3 Pillows. Memory foam, solid foam and similar pillows not exceeding 1kg in weight.
ALL other pillows are banned. All pillows must have a soft, cotton exterior lining and be fully fire-retardant.
They'll probably set up a dept headed by a "Soft Furnishings Secretary" to erradicate the "Problem". It's great, choose a problem that doesn't exist in the first place and you cannot FAIL to "Solve" it!
You're not right to say that input error is caused exclusively by operators. A confusing or ambiguous control system can cause these problems. So can a confused or unclear command structure!
Personally I think it's quite amusing that people needed to be "tasered" twice. Conclusion. They don't work as well as the media would have us believe.
This is especially true when they're not genuine taser products and haven't been kept maintained with up-to-date batteries, freshly charged and used by people who know what they're doing.
I don't get this. If I had a shop on the high street and some chain decided they wanted the site, could they sue me into vacating my premises so they could take over? No. But they could offer my landlord silly amounts for the plot, until he put my rent up so high I couldn't afford to pay it! - which is what MySpace were trying to do here.
I'm glad they lost, and I hope TWS got their expenses!
Just who gave them???
The right to carry out "Surveilance" under the guise of the RIPA?
These powers should be restricted to warranted Police officers ONLY. I think i'm right in saying a specially trained office of the rank of Inspector or greater needs to authorise RIPA requests.
What worries me is that, from local council "officers" it is only a hop, skip and a jump to private contractors being given the power to snoop on anyone they like. Having seen the way council parking contractors behave (no naming, but you know who they are!) this would be terrible. We'll have the buggers rifling through our trash to find out what we've been doing and what they can fine us for. KA-CHING!!!!
@ Neil Jones
Technically you're absolutely right. But whenever a set of laws are laid down about something, it's invariably taken as an authorisation *provided* the task is completed in the proscribed way. Previously the surveilance teams had to pass a subjective test of whether their actions were reasonable, now they just have to "hit the bullet points" in order to be judged to have complied with the law!
Exactly how is it discrimination to give someone a higher premium because they're an increased risk?? I might just as well argue that it's "discimination" that I need to pay more for my motor insurance because I have an Expensiv(ish) fast(ish) car!
They should give it up...
Even if Vista isn't as bad as it's reputation, it's reputation is bad enough in itself to cause problems.
I'd have more respect for MS if they just said "okay, our bad".
I don't get it
It's true that Ethnic Minorities tend to center around poorer areas because, for whatever reason*, they tend to have crappier jobs. Poor areas are where cars are stolen more.
It's not racist to point out that a neighboorhood is high-crime, whoever lives there. If the locals have a problem with their neighboorhood being designated as high-crime, maybe stealing less cars would help?
* A debate for another day. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter why. Just that they do.
Where is the case?
They said it could run Vista. Vista Basic IS Vista. What's the beef???
Frankly. This is equivelent to me marching into a car dealership, buying a new car without asking any questions and then suing the dealership because the basic model I bought doesn't have sat-nav like my friends top-of-the-line car does.
I wish someone could convince enough people that there is a market for a "gaming computer" along the lines of the Amiga. This could sit between the consoles and the PCs and provide a "third way" aimed at the home user and hobbyist. PCs are massively flawed as games machines (designed for word-processing at their core, unpredictable hardware specs, expensive to upgrade/replace). Consoles are massively flawed as home computers (no keyboard, for a start!!).
I loved the close-knit Amiga scene. Today's worldwide, internet-driven PC scene just ain't the same. I guess it's a little like getting nostalgic for the days of the steam car. I guess the days of pioneer aviation in machines like the Wright Flyer and Sopwith Camel were more exiting than the days of the Airbus 380 and predator UAV.
It won't work.
It'll work about as well as "Video Calling" and video clips has on 3G. IE it sounds great until you try to use it, then you realise how crap it is and either walk out the store, remove it from your mobile tarrif or simply never bother to use it again. A mobile screen isn't big enough, and people won't be arsed to carry a dedicated device that is. Witness the almost complete failure of the tiny UHF LCD televisions that have been launched and promptly forgotten countless times over the last twenty plus years - people want their Telly big, noisy and comfortable to watch. Why else do TV screens get bigger and bigger whilst every other domestic appliance gets smaller and smaller? Why is it always the focus of the lounge, opposite the most comfortable chair?? Any clue as to why most people look for smallness in a mobile above almost anything else?
And I don't see there being a mass-market for people standing in bus-cues watching TV. People usually either listen to their MP3 player, or read a book. Or both. "Things to do whilst waiting for a bus" already exist. A book is perfectly at home in a gym bag, even being dropped down a flight of stairs won't render it useless (usually). Try saying THAT about a sensibly-priced mass-produced telly!
There are technical problems, too. Like how to make the screen bright enough to watch in daylight whilst also providing enough battery life to be worthwhile? Since the antenna is non-directional you'll struggle to get bandwith enough to make a good picture. It's not like a mobile - Don't forget you can drop 100th of a second of speech and people just hear a click. Drop 1000th of a second of video data and you loose that frame - video doesn't just require more bandwidth it also requires better QOS.
Finally, the business model itself. Mobile phone companies will doubtless want to charge a fortune for service to "recoup" their 3G expendature - and will almost certainly price the system into failure. Once they've done that it's practically impossible to change the publics perception that a service is expensive - even when you drop the price! Initial programming is going to be cheaply made, so content won't sell it either.
it's a dead duck. It's been done, it's failed before. It'll fail again and merely changing the technology won't fix that. People don't want micro-televisions.
I do find the British Accent (especially my middle-class BBCish accent) opens doors for you in the states. People assume you're frightfully cultured because of where you come from. Clearly the yanks get a better class of brit tourist than, say, Lanzarote or Ibiza does.
I wonder how many Americans realise the enigmatic double-intendre of calling the quiet, neat and slightly camp(ish) pathologist in "NCIS" by the nickname "Duckie"??*
* For the collonial reader "Duckie" is an older, somewhat genteel British euphanism for a Homosexual.
Sorry, Scott, but prison IS too easy. I've worked inside them quite a number of times. I wouldn't want to swap my comfortable flat, personal freedom and privacy for one. But people who live in crappy estates and survive on benefits and minor crime might well think about it.
The reason our "Victorian" prisons were so damned unpleasant was to mean that A) We could run enough to lock up all the arse-pains and 2) they wouldn't want to go there in the first place, let alone go back.
I never understand why people "get in touch" after 30 years. You've both led different lives, you'll probably be very different people. Maybe it's a way of trying to hang onto the past? But the past IS the past - you have to leave it there. Wistfully wishing you'd made different decisions to what you did is one thing, but it makes about as much sense as regretting getting last weeks lottery numbers completely wrong.
Your wifie running off with someone else doesn't justify homicide. That said, if she's decided to leave and will claim 60 percent of your worldly possessions, insist you sell your home, your car and all the rest of it to pay for her leaving and setting up with some new chap (who she won't marry, so you keep paying) then you cannot really be surprised if you're looking a bit askance. She just decides after years that she fancies a change, and you can darn well pay for her new life, whilst moving into a rented shoebox yourself, she takes up with her new blokie on 3 incomes in a big pad and hassles your for cash.
TBH, I think it'd feel like doing much the same myself. I'm not saying it'd do it, but i'd certainly enjoy a few lurid daydreams!
it's all bollocks.
Sorry, but it IS. How the hell is Mrs and Mr Average going to be convinced to buy any of those electrical cars? Frankly they look ridiculous and only really make sense if you have no luggage to carry, and don't mind everyone staring all the time.
What we need is an electric "Ford Fiesta" you can charge at home for modest cost and that then does 1000 miles between charges and offers performance similar to a petrol car. Unless someone is going to build a charging network for electric cars that nobody uses, in the hope that people will start to buy the cars that nobody makes.
Oh. And when they've done that someone will have to build a power generation and distribution system up to handling the task of charging millions of cars a day. And work out how to plug the massive hole left in government coffers by the loss of petrol tax. Once the gov cotton on the the idea of taxing the charge in these cars as much as petrol the running costs would be very similar to a petrol car.
I have to say...
I'd be pretty pissed if I thought I was going to get to fly a real aircraft, sit in the cockpit and feel the thrust of the engines, the g-force of combat flying etc. I was going to be a fighter-jock and have women throwing themselves at me, a fast car, sexy flying jacket and spend the next decade bathing in the respect of everyone I met (nearly) and playing with the coolest toys on the planet.
Then some git decides that I'm actually going to spend my career "flying" a blip on a radar screen to take inane pictures of buildings. To add insult to injury they tell me that A) I have to do this on a remote airforce base B) I need to work silly hours and C) my pay will be a fraction of what I expected as i'm not actually "in combat". How do they select these people? are they rejects from flight school, or pilots who are too old, too injured or whatever to fly real jets? Do people voulenteer? Or is it just a question of "We need 20 new pilots from basic training to join the predator programme" (as opposed to the "F22 Programme" or "A10 Programme etc) and some poor saps just get picked at random to have their jet taken away, and replaced with a predator?
Can't blame them for being pissed, really. I wonder if they ever get to actually see "their" aircraft?
it might work
I'd say the majority of the people in prison are in for burglary or robbery, not drugs offences. That said, the majority of them committed the offence to pay for drugs.
The addicts do need their drugs, it's a vital part of weening them off heroine.
Phorm - nien danke?
I suspect Phorm knew perfectly bloody well their "corrections" would get wiped out. I guess they banked on people wiki-ing them a LOT whilst they were in the news - and knew the alterations would last at least long enough for the majority of people to look it up and get a favorable impression and forget the whole thing.
A pound to a pinch of s...snuff..... the tech gets renamed as something else and foisted upon us anyway, once the fuss has died down. Probably called something like "BT MEDIAVISION" or "FIRESERVE", or something really positive and sexy-sounding.
That's that fucked up...
Google must be smiling with Delight, i'll tell you that much.
Who gives a Rats arse?
Frankly. If.... IF.... Apple have printed something that just isn't so in their adverts (IE claimed "Millions" when it's "Thousands"), then the purchasers have been misled and deserve their money back. For something as subjective as whether the colours look "Flat" to you - you probably should have "tried before your buyed". At the end of the day, the monitor is still plenty good enough for surfing the net, watching videos etc etc. Which is what the Mac was sold to do.
I know they've been the darlings of people who need accurate colour for some time, but maybe Apple feel they're better off building a machine at a price that suits the mass-market, rather than building an expensive machine to suit one minority?
I know it sucks a fat one, but Apple are changing and moving from provider of specialist computers to a few minority markets to purveyor of mass-market technology to all-and-sundry, and their product focus has shifted to reflect this change in targetted demographic. I'm not sure it will work, to be honest. I think the Wintel PC may have too big a stranglehold. But, if it doesn't, at least they'll have iPod revenue to keep them going (unless they fuck that up, too..)
I hope it's better...
Than the technology used in my Laptop. Otherwise each passenger will be forced to...stop... find fingerprint panel.. Swipe finger.. Swear... Swipe again... Wipe finger on trousers... Swipe finger... Get embaressed about holding up the que... Try is faster... Try it slower... Try it pressing more... try another finger, try just the tips..... Try it pressing less.....get pissed off an annoying "booop" noise everytime it fails.... Put down hang luggage and clean finger with alcohol wipe... Expain to security they cannot get their finger to swipe... Repeat all of above under watchfull eye of security.... Clean finger again... Expain to security that, no, they're not a complete retard and didn't use the "wrong" hand when they "Swiped in"... Have finger examined by security.. Be patronised rigid whilst security rub their finger again on the reader, repeating once again all of the above... Then watch security clean reader with alcohol before repeating again.... l cringe as they isten to accouncement about the delay in the departure of their flight... Finally stand around whilst security call someone to check their passport details and let them on the damned plane.
Where they'll wait for 2 hours whilst they repeat all of the above with the test of the self-loading cargo... The aeroplane with be cleaned by an illegal immigrant who is on the run from the police in his own country, regularly attends fundementalist rallies and who's security is "in processing" and has been for the last six months since the least-cost contract cleaning company picked him up from an employment agency staffed by McDonalds rejects and run by a despot who doesn't care who he employs provided they are cheap and he gets his commission....
@ Anon coward.
What next, Police check points on the highways?
The have those already. They're call "Census Points". Oddly enough they usually have ANPR cameras and pursuit cars around. Gosh they must be desperate for that census data!
Just how "compatible" does it have to be?
The PC IS capable of booting and "running" Vista. Nobody ever said it would be fast, they just said it would run. And it does. The argument that you cannot browse the internet whilst playing tunes on Itunes (or whatever) doesn't really hold water, because they said it was "Windows Vista Capable", not "Itunes & Internet Explorer" capable. Yes, it's crap. But it does do what they claimed it would. Whether it does what you assumed it would is irrelevant.
Just so long as it starts, it's "Capable".
Quit customer its so custard?
I don't doubt the figures in the millions are overstated. If you take the number on one street that has been crammed with cameras to deal with certain problems in that specific area and them multiply that by the number of high streets in the UK - it's going to be pretty horrendous. If you took the high-street of the little town I live in and did the same exersize there you might conclude there are NO cameras at all in the UK.
However I don't think that the problems in the UK are going to be solved by making sure someone is watching 24/7. They are far-more deep rooted than this. CCTV is quite effective at speading problems around, though, people move outside of the town-centers to commit serious crime and when they're pissed up and looking for a barney - they don't stop to think if they're on candid camera.
My theory is that ALL CCTV cameras covering a public area ought to be published on a website somewhere, or available to watch in a nearby public building. Then people might trust them a bit more, as the watchers would know someone was watching them......
To be brutally honest.
Regardless of "Red Kens" own brand of politics (misguided and self-congratulory hatred of everyone from a priviledged background than him) the wind is DEFINATELY blowing due-green. I don't like this policy at all, but I think that trying to change it in the current climate is likely to be farting against thunder, to be honest.
Porsche would do well to take this as a hint of things to come and start to build smaller, more fuel-efficient models. The days of the their 80s-style GT cars are over (or soon will be) and I think fashion (as much a practicality) is moving towards small, lighter, more efficient sports cars. If you look at the approach BMW is taking (encorporating enviro-tech into their cars in a low-key way that avoids labelling them as "green", whilst reaping the benefits of doing so) it's quite effective. Maybe "porker" need to look at returning to the design philosophy of the 914 et al they produced during the last fuel crisis of the 1970s?
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying that if you take a pragmatic viewpoint, they're in danger of producing a product that doesn't fit market conditions. The big problem is that LOTUS and the Japanese already control the light sportscar market.
I just wish they'd realise....
That the truth is that the government had them on 3g licences. The phone operators screwed up and paid a lot of money for something that is, effectively, worthless because virtually nobody (outside a few geeks) wants to download significant data or make video calls.
I'm right in the target market for 3g (Geek, male, IT worker, middle income) and even I cannot be chuffed with it.
Scrapping with the mentally ill is dangerous to all parties, and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Mostly they can be convinced to go with your, unless they're of the "raving attack dog" persuasion (there are a few, but not many). Druggies are usually more dangerous than the mentally ill.
I dunno about the US but in the UK a police constable can arrest someone under sec136 of the Mental Health act if that person is a danger to themselves or others. But ONLY to move that person to "A place of safety" which is specifically NOT a police station - saving that this is an interim measure whilst somewhere suitable is found. Like Rob i'm an ex-copper and i've done it myself more than once. Very often if you show you're human and talk to them and gain their trust and respect they will co-operate.
Time used to be a teacher was (like a policeman) a feared and/or respected authority figure. You didn't piss them off because you absolutely didn't want to live with the consequences. Now the liberal left has convinced everyone that authority doesn't need to be authoritarian (except when dealing with motorists or people who don't agree with the options of the PC left, it would appear) and nobody has any respect for authority any more. Kids harass teachers and get get away with it as it cannot be "proven". People fight with coppers, loose and sue.
It's all down to Lawyers. The only reason the police are so lighthanded is they're worried about being sued. Ditto teachers. Before this country because the american-style lawywerfest it is today Authority still existed. And, quell Suprise it all happened under a lawyer who was married to a lawyer....
YOu can keep someone in jail for 4 grand a year.
It won't be very nice. But then maybe they might think about not breaking the law next time.
Does anyone care??
Well, if they government want to look at my eMails, they're welcome. I'm sure they'd be fascinated by what they learn. That i'm an honest, hard-working IT tech, no threat to national security, I have a sister and a fiance to buy Birthday gifts for soon and I need to go to Manchester in the not-too distant future to fix a printer. And I subcribe to the El Reg Digests...Earthshattering....
I do sometimes think that encrypting email is rather like putting documents in an envelope marked "Top Secret". It ensures the other people know which communications are of interest and allowed them to effectively target any attacks. If you have a million emails to sort through looking for terrorist messages I think you might just start with the thousand or so encrypted ones. Nice of someone to point out which ones are worth intercepting and reading by encrypting them, wasn't it?
Of course, encryption is only half the battle. If the message is cyphered as well then what they get back (after time cracking the encryption key - which will be harder if they are looking for the "the right gibberish", rather than recognisably cohearant data) may well be too obscure for anyone other than the intended recipient to glean any accurate meaning from. Especially if the meaning is further obscured by synonyms and substitute words etc. They may well learn that "the hippo is one who ate the racing car - munch!" (meaning "the attack (hippo) is on the 18th (one-ate) of March (racing car) in Munich (Munch)". But will that mean anything to anyone?
Just a thought. I do think that higher-level encryption is, arguably, a good idea for corporate security reasons. But I also suspect it would be quite easy to just mug the bloke who holds the blackberry for it's contents. This completely compromises security and will just look like a street robbery if done properly.
But exactly who are they going to sue if they don't get paid??
Someone with no money. If you sue you'll simply have a civil debt against a declared bankrupt with no obvious liquid assets. At the moment you have an employer who owes money for services rendered.
Basically I guess they decided to pay off the "chaps" before the lads got a look in.
This is a well-known scam. Often it's a bottle of water in there.
I tend to agree. The bloke probably thought "I'm getting it for cheap because it's knocked off". Poetic justice, if that's the case. He thought he was going to profit from someone else's misfortune - but ended up getting stung himself.
What kind of idiot pays 600 notes for a laptop from a car boot, anyways? You can get a decent new, warranteed laptop for that from any number of retailers. And they'll be there next month if it goes wrong.
For all anyone knows this man could be a 6'5" 250 lb ex-America football player. And the cops attending could have just happened to be 5'2, 120lbs ,and completely incapable of restraining this giant on PCP. Just because he's old, doesn't mean to say he's out-of-condition and doesn't mean to say he's not on drugs.
Pepper-spray didn't work, which suggests either mental health, drugs or a very positive mental goal. As it IS he's in custody and nobody is seriously injured.
Congrats to the company for discbelieving his story and having the confidence to sack him. Thus proving they're no suckers. He could have got away with it if he's sucked us to the boss, but he blew it rather than get ahead.
As for him. Considering the reputational damage - I bet it sucks to be him.
You know what they say...
Just because you're a paranoid dillusional, doesn't mean to say that they AREN'T all out to get you...
Hang on. If the ISP don't want to supply you with a service, they don't have to. You might as well say that your local gunsmiths are infringing your rights by refusing to sell you a gun - when you don't have a gun licence!
That said. I think the ISP ought to have a pretty high proof standard - not just a few screenshots and a fullsome "trust us". I also think the RI ought to have to post a bond of say £80k for each disconnection they ask for. If it is challenged and they are unable to conclusively prove the sharing to a magistrate, then they loose the bond. IE, they'll have to think carefully before acting.
My belief is that this is all just posturing intended to scare people. I don't think they'll actually do it because of the huge practical and legal problems involved.
Question is. How far as we going to take the argument "if you want it, and can afford it, why shouldn't you have it??".
I'm pretty sure Michael Ryan would have been against gun control!
It's just a rehash of a classic 80s film. You could do this stuff 20 years ago. Not sure sure a killfest will fly in these modern times.
Well, they do call the SAS the Largest regiment in the British army. Oddly enough I used to know a chap who had (genuinely) served in the SAS. I'd describe him as intelligent, decisive, supremely fit and agile, personable enough to work well in any team environment and about as un-macho as a soldier is every likely to get (dedicated family man & Camra member). I should think the last thing the SAS want is the kind of man who'd blab about being in the regiment - they thrive on professionalism and dedication.
I've known a few Jeffs. I tend to just leave them alone - if they're so desperate for other's aprobation that they need to make up fancilful careers and histories for themselves you might actually do their psyche some real damage by showing them up.
Well, I'll be looking at it when I get home. Why did the bank think that by convincing one local judge to declare nobody is allowed to talk about this in his own little pissing hole that this was going to fix a global problem? Even if the ban was nationwide in the USA - do they not know the internet has borders wider than the USA??
Quite honestily it's like sending a deputy from the county sheriff's dept out to stop WWIII - on account of it's illegality. The judge did the right thing, acting in accordance with the relevant laws and statutes - i'm sure. The mistake is with the plonkers who chose such a public and completely ineffective way to get their injunction!