Comments on: Question of the Day http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/ Firedoglake weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:28:02 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: puzzled http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101644 puzzled Sat, 13 May 2006 00:49:29 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101644 <p>Question of the day: Do navy blue socks really work with those boots?</p> <p>they coordinate nicely with the tat…otherwise, they’re iffy.</p> <p>:)</p> Question of the day: Do navy blue socks really work with those boots?

they coordinate nicely with the tat…otherwise, they’re iffy.

:)

]]> By: timrocks http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101510 timrocks Fri, 12 May 2006 23:36:04 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101510 <p>the picture is from burningman. ftr - that was an actual working payphone.</p> the picture is from burningman. ftr – that was an actual working payphone.

]]> By: townser http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101286 townser Fri, 12 May 2006 21:20:17 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101286 <p>Question of the day: Do navy blue socks really work with those boots?</p> Question of the day: Do navy blue socks really work with those boots?

]]> By: xxx http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101214 xxx Fri, 12 May 2006 20:34:49 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101214 <p>dats ‘VV’……..</p> dats ‘VV’……..

]]> By: puzzled http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101172 puzzled Fri, 12 May 2006 20:07:04 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101172 <p>dang, nice picture</p> <p>anyone we know?</p> dang, nice picture

anyone we know?

]]> By: Kathryn in MA http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101170 Kathryn in MA Fri, 12 May 2006 20:06:36 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101170 <p>RE: VLA - A point of trivia = as I was working at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (offices in Charlottesville, VA) in 1972 in the Graphics Department and I was the one who drew the triangle on the map of New Mexico, may i claim midwifery? Well, a very small part of the process.</p> RE: VLA – A point of trivia = as I was working at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (offices in Charlottesville, VA) in 1972 in the Graphics Department and I was the one who drew the triangle on the map of New Mexico, may i claim midwifery? Well, a very small part of the process.

]]> By: john http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101165 john Fri, 12 May 2006 20:00:01 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101165 <p>One minor, inconsequential quibble: Your statement that “You have 72 hours after the fact if you find something that requires further investigation [to get a warrant]” is not quite right. </p> <p>Regardless of whether you find something that requires further investigation, FISA requires that the initial search be justified with a warrant application within 72 hours. You probably know this and I’m just picking on a bit of hurried writing, but in case others aren’t aware I thought I’d correct it.</p> One minor, inconsequential quibble: Your statement that “You have 72 hours after the fact if you find something that requires further investigation [to get a warrant]” is not quite right.

Regardless of whether you find something that requires further investigation, FISA requires that the initial search be justified with a warrant application within 72 hours. You probably know this and I’m just picking on a bit of hurried writing, but in case others aren’t aware I thought I’d correct it.

]]> By: Praedor Atrebates http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101159 Praedor Atrebates Fri, 12 May 2006 19:55:50 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101159 <p><i>Do you think that some of the more aggressive asbestos, etc litigators might get involved here against the Telcos? Lerach available?</i></p> <p>Well, EFF is after AT&T, the NY law firm of Michael Pascazi filed a $20billion class action against Verizon in February (Docket No: SDNY 06 Civ 1221). I haven’t yet found anything on a lawsuit against Bell South.</p> <p>Unfortunately, MCI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon and MCI is my long distance carrier…at least it was until this morning. I switched to Sprint as a result of Verizon’s spying. I then realized that the Prepaid phonecard I use (and have recharged, so my name is now tied to it) is from AT&T. I am trying to find out if my local phone company, a little rural company, has ties to GTE, another Verizon front. </p> <p>I think $20billion is a little low. Make it $40billion…or $50. I want Verizon to tank and go away as a result of the financial burden of paying off their liabilities for violating the law. Same goes for AT&T. </p> <p>The companies are liable for $21,000 per customer they violated. Bring the bastards down.</p> Do you think that some of the more aggressive asbestos, etc litigators might get involved here against the Telcos? Lerach available?

Well, EFF is after AT&T, the NY law firm of Michael Pascazi filed a $20billion class action against Verizon in February (Docket No: SDNY 06 Civ 1221). I haven’t yet found anything on a lawsuit against Bell South.

Unfortunately, MCI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon and MCI is my long distance carrier…at least it was until this morning. I switched to Sprint as a result of Verizon’s spying. I then realized that the Prepaid phonecard I use (and have recharged, so my name is now tied to it) is from AT&T. I am trying to find out if my local phone company, a little rural company, has ties to GTE, another Verizon front.

I think $20billion is a little low. Make it $40billion…or $50. I want Verizon to tank and go away as a result of the financial burden of paying off their liabilities for violating the law. Same goes for AT&T.

The companies are liable for $21,000 per customer they violated. Bring the bastards down.

]]> By: Kathryn in MA http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101152 Kathryn in MA Fri, 12 May 2006 19:47:01 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101152 <p>bobby g 111 - yes.</p> bobby g 111 – yes.

]]> By: john http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101136 john Fri, 12 May 2006 19:29:59 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/question-of-the-day/#comment-101136 <p>Do you think that some of the more aggressive asbestos, etc litigators might get involved here against the Telcos? Lerach available?</p> Do you think that some of the more aggressive asbestos, etc litigators might get involved here against the Telcos? Lerach available?

]]>