Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:53 pm**

That I start thinking that workers rights and freedom are compatible:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/man_fined_32000_for_blocking_newark_airport_tracking_system.html

Some "should" comes along and ruins it.

(It was the most controversial word I could think of)

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:06 pm**

Why not have the airport take him to civil court--if it damaged x-amount of airport operations?

Will the FCC send the $32,000 to the airport and its personnel, whose businesses were allegedly harmed?

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:25 pm**

The real story is the GPS blocker being in an employee's vehicle. Doesn't whoever monitors it notice that whenever he gets near the strip club it stops transmitting?

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:31 pm**

They're not paid to be more efficient, DY.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:17 am**

me no understand. his employer used GPS to track his car when he was off work?

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:25 am**

I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:33 am**

thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:36 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.

Perhaps it could be used nefariously. Of course, we could only search Arab men because statistics show they are the most likely to use these types of devices nefariously, but that wouldn't be racist.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:24 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.

Half of all air traffic problems in the US stem from this guy:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/half_of_nations_airport_delays.html

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:01 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.

Perhaps it could be used nefariously. Of course, we could only search Arab men because statistics show they are the most likely to use these types of devices nefariously, but that wouldn't be racist.

Sidestepping the racist, nonracist policies, but couldn't you say the same about anything?

For example, there's plenty of cheap means for terrorizing or damaging airports, which may seem disconcerting, until we wonder... just how many people are actually willing to do that? We can imagine "a lot," but realistically, it doesn't seem to be worrisome enough*.

*Of course, if I was chief of security for some airport, I'd be worried, but that's a different context.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:02 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.

Half of all air traffic problems in the US stem from this guy:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/half_of_nations_airport_delays.html

They should hire another 'fall guy' to escape direct blame.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:11 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.

Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.

Perhaps it could be used nefariously. Of course, we could only search Arab men because statistics show they are the most likely to use these types of devices nefariously, but that wouldn't be racist.

Sidestepping the racist, nonracist policies, but couldn't you say the same about anything?

For example, there's plenty of cheap means for terrorizing or damaging airports, which may seem disconcerting, until we wonder... just how many people are actually willing to do that? We can imagine "a lot," but realistically, it doesn't seem to be worrisome enough*.

*Of course, if I was chief of security for some airport, I'd be worried, but that's a different context.

I don't disagree.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:10 am**

Since you're Greek, I suspect you're hiding something from me...

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:11 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Since you're Greek, I suspect you're hiding something from me...

Look in the horse.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:38 pm**

Here's the FCC case:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2013/FCC-13-106A1.html

Turn out they don't like people driving around jamming everything they can.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:04 pm**

Symmetry wrote:Here's the FCC case:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2013/FCC-13-106A1.html

Turn out they don't like people driving around jamming everything they can.

While we understand the amount of the forfeiture proposed herein may be
sizable for an individual, we find it appropriate given the significant
safety concerns raised by the violations at issue. Consistent with Section
503 of the Act, we note that in response to this NAL Mr. Bojczak can
provide information about his financial condition and ability to pay which
could result in a reduced forfeiture based on Mr. Bojczak's particular
financial circumstances

That's bullshit! Make him pay for it the Canadian way: by forced sex slavery while being moved around the country by Ukrainians.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:19 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Here's the FCC case:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2013/FCC-13-106A1.html

Turn out they don't like people driving around jamming everything they can.

While we understand the amount of the forfeiture proposed herein may be
sizable for an individual, we find it appropriate given the significant
safety concerns raised by the violations at issue. Consistent with Section
503 of the Act, we note that in response to this NAL Mr. Bojczak can
provide information about his financial condition and ability to pay which
could result in a reduced forfeiture based on Mr. Bojczak's particular
financial circumstances

That's bullshit! Make him pay for it the Canadian way: by forced sex slavery while being moved around the country by Ukrainians.

Bar the Ukrainians, that's the Jefferson approach.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:39 pm**

Ban bloggers.

Bollocks.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:48 pm**

Serbia wrote:Ban bloggers. Bollocks. CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE This is my word.

Hmm, I'm gonna go with a tentative maybe here.

Conquer Club

Every Time

Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time

Re: Every Time