If the gang is smart enough to make such sophisticated skimmers, I'm sure they're smart enough to evade the police.

"Hey kid, here's $10 Euros, go put this on that ATM."

"Hey kid, here's $10 Euros, go get the card skimmer."

"Hey kid, if you finger me, your whole family is going to die."

Cops pick up one kid, there's 100 more willing to take his place.

Your video, Finding an ATM Skimmer in Vienna, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

They missed the part about the embedded second card reader (skimmer) and pin camera.

They didn't put the skimmer on to skim their own credit cards.

I always find myself passively inspecting devices I put my card through for this kind of thing. I didn't realize they could be so undetectable, or so it would seem.

Your video, Raw Video: Men Place Card Skimmer on ATM Store Machine!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No one here knows pools? That's a skimmer, it's an intake for the pump but also helps keep the surface of the pool clean. They usually have lids though.

Actually, grinder was the better answer.

File me under "officially scared the hell outta"

I hear gas skimmers are becoming quite the rage too. They are gaining popularity b/c ppl dont check for skimmers on gas pumps.

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? California... Homosexuals... Prayer... Insurance...

Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations. The Black Panther case was a blatant violation of civil rights - but his administration dismissed it because in thier OPINION black people can't violate the civil rights of others.

The mosque is simply one note in the sad litany of his hypocrisy. He approves the mosque on the basis of limited involvement in city/state government as well as the bill of rights? This comes off as hypocritical to anyone who hears it given his extensive record of ignoring the rights in order to force feed his agenda at national, state, local, and individual levels.

Arizona wants to enforce legitimate laws & protect citizens? Louisiana wants to build sand berms? BP wants to bring in non-union oil skimmers? Texas want to lift my oil drilling ban? It's against the constitution to force people to buy my Obama brand insurance? Banks are refusing to take my TARP money? The people don't want my financial reform bill? The people don't want my Health Care reform bill? The people don't want my Cap & Tax schemes? The people don't want my plan for illegal amnesty? Bah! I'm Barak Hussain Obama and I disallow such freedoms in MY America!

Oh - but you radial Cordoba freaks can build your mosque at Ground Zero. No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from. No, I don't care this is a documented terrorist tactic. No I don't care Germany just shut down Cordobas because they were terror cells. No, I don't care that by definition a mosque can't possibly be a "community outreach center".

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain knows clearly that Obama LOVES to violate the constitution and interfere with state/local policy. But now all of a sudden he changes his mind and state's rights and religious freedom matter? Anyone living through this nightmare dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball on the issue and that his motivation is his personal bias. That's why he's getting shellaqued in the ratings, the polls, and even (albiet reluctantly) in the press.

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

You won't. This was a biased decision to favor an opinion/ideology that he sympathizes with. As evidenced by just about EVERY other thing he's ever done, Obama will do the exact opposite on any issue he finds politically convenient.

[redacted]

>> ^HugeJerk:
"Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate..."
Regulating Agencies can't do anything to fix the situation now sadly... the non-enforcement or rather the lack of meaningful penalties is something that definitely needs addressed in several industries (Coal Mining has also shown their lack of adherence to safety requirements because the penalties are marginal). Breaking apart the agency to form two so they separate the enforcement from the collections will likely not fix the issue of people being corruptable and willing to look the other way.
"Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help... "
From what I heard recently there are 12 countries actively assisting in the Gulf, 20 had offered to help and I agree that it's lame that we don't know why the other 8 weren't accepted. If their assistance means a quicker recovery, then they should be taken up on their offers.
"Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer..."
I don't recall the actual Federal Government giving an apology to BP, just a politician or two who have contribution ties to the oil industry. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.
"Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes"
Unless we're going to shove dollar bills into the well to plug it, a surplus of Federal Funds isn't going to fix the spill at this point. The economic situation and the circumstances that lead to it, including two wars, are certainly things that the President needs to be working on.


First point--yes, regulating won't fix anything already messed up. But preventing future failures is more important... This would help if there was a BP2—so, in essence, if we would have started regulating, oh, before BP1, then it would have fixed the problem.

Point 2, glad we agree-ish.

Point 3, the federal government as a whole never answers something completely. However, we can generalize to a certain point in regards to certain things. Americans hate gay marriage. It is sad, but there are a lot, most in fact, of Americans who are intolerant. Does that mean we all are? No… but, what do we all do to curb this behavior? Do we truly try to change beliefs, or do we score cheap political points. Most are in for the points...

Slowly the views are dying off. However, those in inaction are nearly as responsible as those actively causing the harm. A man walks by a traffic accident and does not call for help; he is nearly as bad as the hit-and-run driver because both know that that action will result in harm.

My point is many federally employed republicans have made their support known for BP and refused the "shakedown" of BP. No one raised much of a stink until one republican apologized directly to BP's man... In other words, it was fine until that one guy did it...

4th point, I was meaning that infrastructure should have already been our focus and should start to be our future focus. We squander on two wars, as you say, and have barely any skimmers or science to stop this problem. Invest, invest, invest. We agree here, I am sure. It is all just a matter of whose fault things are.

There is no end to this oil, it is making to the beaches in spite of any spraying they are doing. So, the net effect is not only are the beaches already being ruined and will continue to be ruined, but we are also adding dangerous solvents to the ocean. Solvents are usable idea when you are talking about a defined spill. This spill hasn't even stopped. It is the equivalent of trying to mop while there is still a geyser in your kitchen. Solvents should be considered when you have a contained, defined mass of oil that is to large to spot clean with skimmers. Solvents shouldn't even be on the table when you are still leaking oil, the already existing oil isn't contained, there are vast quantities of oil blow solvent application levels, and the quantity of solvent needed to disperse the oil would kill all wildlife anyway.

@Mcboinkens I'm well aware of the limitations of booming and skimming. I think you're giving BP too much credit. When Halliburton looks like the responsible corporate citizen, you know somebody did something very, very wrong.

Incompetent booming (and we've seen exactly that) is no excuse for poor science. You don't seem to understand that there is NO SUCH THING as a guarantee in science. Instead, many corporate boards tend to look at the course of action which is most likely to yield the highest profits in the immediate quarter. In this case, the dispersants (which their buddies make btw) were a cheaper option than deploying properly trained and equipped boomers and skimmers.

I mean geez, why not just spray a bunch of dawn on that $hit? Heck, you can't see what's going on under that slick anyway, can you? Besides, our boys in the EPA and the MMS said it was cool...

Didn't you hear? Booming is for pussies.

Regarding the couple of comments about whether the war in Iraq was about oil. 9/11 gave exactly what the PNAC report was looking for (and spelled out in their report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”) to mobilize public outrage and direct it towards a military invasion of the Middle East. “Crossing the Rubicon” is an investigation that creates a nice picture for the motives of certain people to be involved in 9/11. But aside from those questions, there is one question that many people think they already know the answer to:

Is the Iraq war is a failure?

Whether something is a failure or a success depends on your goals.

If the goal was to bring democracy to a random nation (i.e. nothing to do with reasons given for the war) in the Middle East, then Iraq is a disaster. Just like Cheney told the press it would be when discussing why the previous President Bush's (Bush I, for skimmers) administration didn't overthrown Saddam the first time. So what changed for Cheney between that time and when the current President Bush (Bush II) invaded Iraq? Some hidden knowledge about a region that has been unstable for a thousand plus years? Or perhaps different goals?

Now if the goal was oil-centric, then Iraq is easily a success. Under the draft that the US gave Iraq for its constitution, the Iraq National Oil Company would control 17 of the 80 current oil fields. Foreign corporations would control the other 63 oil fields AND any future finds for the next 30 years. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

Here's a quote from Jim Holt's book, "It's the Oil, Stupid."

**** BEGIN QUOTE ****
The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards 'nation-building' has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades - a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics - dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final 'surge' that has hastened internal migration - could scarcely have been more effective. The costs - a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) - are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco, it is a resounding success.
**** END QUOTE ****


Also are two videos to add a counterpoint about WTC7 for this sift (please read post below also):
http://www.stage6.com/LoneWolf/video/2201611/9/11-WTC7
http://www.stage6.com/LoneWolf/video/2201336/9/11-Official-Pancake-Theory-Debunked

Clearly only highly-trained pool skimmers and rodeo clowns should attempt this stunt!