Websites can send down a single header indicating adult content. The device, the parent setup to indicate the users age, can respect that. Legitimate adult websites will not show the content. There is no need for any verification beyond that or it's just government mandated surveillance.
> There is no need for any verification beyond that or it's just government mandated surveillance.
There is no verification beyond that in these sorts of bills (CA, CO, IL). It's the parent's responsibility to watch their kids when they set up an account.
> Legitimate adult websites will not show the content.
This is a big problem (that won't necessarily be solved by this particular legislation, granted). There are already voluntary rating HTML tags websites can add to indicate parental control software should block them, but they're voluntary and non-standardized. Websites can choose not to comply with no real-world consequences. And I don't think platforms like Reddit or X, which are ostensibly all-ages social media but also have an abundance of adult content, are properly set up to serve tags like that on NSFW posts but not other ones.
It's a tricky problem to solve, and, imo, it's one the tech industry has demonstrated it doesn't have any desire to solve itself, hence legislation starting to get involved.
> Websites can send down a single header indicating adult content.
It sounds at first glance like a no-brainer that websites shouldn't have access to any information and the enforcement should be done at a local level (like the current voluntary HTML tags that locally installed parental control software can sometimes read). But some websites might want to display alternate content to minors-- e.g. a Wikipedia article with some images withheld, or Reddit sending a user back to an all-ages subreddit instead of just fully breaking or failing to load when the user stumbles upon something 18+. For anything like that, the website will need to know in some form that the user isn't able to see 18+ content.
The US has a large unbanked population that is currently fighting the trend of places discovering they can get rid of undesirable poorer customers by refusing to accept cash. These people would then lose access to many services on the Internet now due to parents refusing to parent.
I used to just record the ground and even leave out my feet, but apparently they detect and ban people who do this too often now. The data was always going somewhere shady, but after the sale it is even worse so I just stopped completely. At best you get a poffin or rare candy and that absolutely is not worth it.
The minimum viable setup is the Home Assistant Green. I run it on a slightly better ODroid, since the green did not exist at the time. Any heavy task, like using Ollama, are passed over to my far more main computer.
This is a boring opinion. It's the equivalent of what happens to many older adults when it comes to music. All of the best songs came out in their teens to about 30 so what's the point of listening to anything new? It assumes there is no innovation and the person just traps themselves in the past.
You could say there hasn't been any good new music since 1970 and humans have been making music for thousands of year. Or you could try out the many new genres and eventually find something new and exciting.
it just seems like a very boring way to live out your life.
That's funny. I was having this similar discussion with my 16 year old niece, and I was asking her what she's been listening to as a 50 year old trying to broaden my musical horizons. She pulled out her Spotify and shared some of her playlists with me, and I was astonished to see that most of the music that she had been enjoying was produced in the late 1960s to the mid-1980s. We had a good laugh about it, and bonded over some of the classic music that I love that I was suprised to find that she loves. There were some modern things interspersed, and I did learn about some new artists and experimental genres. Seems like a clear example of the Law of diminishing marginal returns in the cinema and music industries in Southern California — leading to those industries collapsing. AI and generative crap being a big evidence point for the argument.
To test whether you’re right, please list 10 movies made in the last 10 years that will stand the test of time as truly great movies. If fewer than one per year is worth watching, it’s a hard sell to say that we should spend our time sorting through the chaff trying to find it.
It’s entirely possible that we’re in a period where most of those with creativity have just stopped making movies. Interestingly, I find TV has everything movies are lacking, creativity, originality, even big name actors that used to make movies.
List ten movies that will stand the test of time in the time frame of the decade after you turned 25. This will make it less biased to stuff you think is good just because you had never seen anything similar.
Any list will be subjective so instead of taking your initial bait for you to subsequently tear down, people (but probably AI) can construct a list to your personal taste.
I don't even think I'd have the right to tear down anyone's list -- I actually think that even if an 22-year-old replied with a list of ten movies from 2016-2025 that he went to the cinema to see, and which he would be happy to recommend, that'd be enough for me!
I brought up this list: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/essential-2000s-m... and scrolled through, and I think I saw at least half these movies either in the theater or as rentals, and most of the ones I saw I loved. Furthermore, I think at least a third are major contributors to the American cultural canon, both as being in the zeitgeist in the season of their initial release as well as being remembered going forward. For instance, people still today make references to "Mean Girls" or "The Dark Knight" or "Minority Report" that only fully make sense if you've seen those films or at least know they exist and their premises. And I think it would be pretty easy to make a list of 50-75 significant movies each from the 80s and 90s, but I'm focusing on ones during my adulthood to follow the spirit of your ask.
This is what I can't imagine finding ten of in the past decade. I'd be tempted to put "Barbie" on that list potentially, given how many memes I've seen using frames from it. Also, honestly, several Pixar films deserve to be on the list too, though I admit that I'm biased because they're some of the few that I've seen.
I didn't say there're no new great movies coming out, I simply stated that there are enough of great old movies than I PERSONALLY don't need new movies.
> it just seems like a very boring way to live out your life.
Quite the contrary, I constantly discover interesting old movies from a wide variety of genres and different parts of the world.
>Quite the contrary, I constantly discover interesting old movies from a wide variety of genres and different parts of the world.
The entire point was that sounds like a very boring way to live your life.
You can still watch and enjoy old movies without shutting yourself off to the present because you don't feel like putting in any effort to understanding or discovering new things.
Because it was strictly a money saving thing for the company that made the phone worse for no other reason.
Sony phones were some of the first high end water resistant phones. They continue to be water resistant and still have the headphone jack and microSD card slot.
Anything can return anything and you only realize it at runtime is a massive headache. When you can't keep the entire code base in your head it becomes a liability.
I never used Ruby, but Python code bases love mixing in strings that are actually enums and overloading functions that accept all kinds of types. You just had to hope that the documentation was correct to avoid a crash.
Java 1.7 to Python feels very freeing from all the boilerplate. Kotlin, or any other modern language with a well designed standard library, to Python just feels like a bunch of extra mental work and test to write to just avoid brackets.
Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence.
The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome.
If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.
There is a big difference between iranian agents sneaking onto us homeland and conducting an attack vs just inspiring a sympathetic person to commit a violent act.
> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.
I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.
Great logic. China and America might find themselves at war in the coming years. Should we just get it over with and attack them now? Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door. Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession or economic crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.
Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves. A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.
For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.
What a powerful response to an outright attack on their country. This is the capability we are supposed to start a war over?
Sorry it does not follow that politicians in Greece and beyond in Europe were gambling with their citizens lives by entertaining the possibility Iran might launch a drone to crash unceremoniously off-target in Cyprus if their regime was attacked. I don't think anyone in Cyprus cares, actually the only thing this really seems to have kicked off in Cyprus is a protest movement against the American military presence there.
I would think people killed by the machinery of needless wars would appreciate the same fate not falling on others.
You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly?
What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?
China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.
> Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.
Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.
> A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.
Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.
> For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.
> China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.
The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it.
> Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.
Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.
> Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.
This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
> The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about.
It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.
> Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.
No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.
We may not like it, but it is the way it is.
> This is simply incorrect on so many levels
Like what?
> But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war.
In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE.
In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran
In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government).
Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.
> It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.
These are well-known talking points. Yes in a deal the other side gets something. That's what a deal is. Sorry it wasn't a totally awesome deal like Trump would have totally signed that got us everything we wanted. You have a choice start a war or make a deal. That's basic geopolitics. Instead you seem to want to invent a third option out of thin air - come up with the perfect deal. I don't arrive at the same conclusion because it's ridiculous. I have no reason to believe the administration that negotiated that deal was blatantly incompetent or let Iran off the hook. If they could have gotten a better deal and still avoided war I think they would have. What plausible explanation is there to the contrary? Instead, we have a successor who was also unable to negotiate a better deal, and now war. I'm not sure what point you are making. The idea that the Iranians were really any closer to getting a nuclear bomb is a lie. There is no evidence. Iran has been a weak pariah state that can barely keep its top officials alive. This has been the status quo for decades. The same president who negotiated that deal also unleashed Stuxnet. We already bombed more sites last year. Their leaders and scientists have had constant assassinations over the years. Why do you believe that they were any closer to a bomb a month ago than they were when that deal was signed? And what is your evidence?
> No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.
So the President is lying about the motivations for war? So despite what pours out of his mouth you simply pick the most plausible (or easily defensible) explanation and then say "this is what the war is about"? Why would it be putting his cards on the table? You think it escapes anyone in China that it imports Iranian oil and this creates a problem for them? Or do you mean politics is about lying to your own electorate? I noticed you originally led with the same fear-mongering lie about the reach of Iranian missile capabilities. But now you've retreated to we are doing it to stop oil from getting to China. Maybe you, like the President, know the American people don't want to see their own troops and citizens killed to stop the flow of oil to China? Maybe they can also see that when oil stops flowing to China, gas prices also increase at home? We are spending billions of dollars and lost American lives to increase gas prices at home but hey also in China? Is that your claim?
> Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences.
You can just stop there. This is a lie. It's like the "we will be greeted as liberators" claim in Iraq. I can tell from reading the rest of this that you know very little about this region. I don't mean to insult you it's just such a disingenuous claim and makes this back and forth barely even worth it. You are conflating so many things - pan-arabism with majority/minority conflict or even the notion of having a nation. That's wrong. You think Egyptians don't see themselves as Egyptians because some of them believed in pan-arabism? Wrong. You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?
You also walked back from your original claim again.
You said:
> Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all.
Emphasis on *nothing in common at all*
I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with:
1. Countries that were under the grip of an authoritarian leader. Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.
2. Leaders who are not only authoritarian but flagrantly violent. In the absence of responsible governance, they resort to extreme violence to maintain power, creating cycles of pent up resentment, retribution and fear on both sides. The resentment of the powerless is obvious, however the fear of the powerful is equally as destabilizing.
3. Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state. Once their common enemy is removed (to say nothing of a sizable loyalist faction) and given the lack of existing civic structures with broad buy-in, they often resort to violence. Persians only make up about 60% of Iran. Shia Muslims made up about the same percent in Iraq. I mean truly I have no idea what you are talking about. "They see themselves as one nation" based on what? Literally there have been multiple reports that the CIA is arming a separatist movement as we speak as their "boots on the ground" in Iran. You also ignored so many other cleavages - such as level of religious conservatism, class, geography. You think every person Shia or Persian is the same? Do you think when protestors in Iran were gunned down it was only because they weren't the same religion as the people shooting them? Or the same ethnicity? Do you not realize that the very notion of an identity, religion or ethnicity is itself often a point of contention?
4. In a region with a lot of other unstable states where domestic conflict can quickly spill over and spread across borders. Gee that should be obvious. And how about that in basically the same region as those other examples. Great track record of intervention here. But not this one. Trust me. Even though I'm also lying to you about oil being the cause of the war? Because god forbid I put my "cards on the table" aka a fact anyone with an internet connection can look up?
Why don't you actually answer some of the questions that led me to this long digression with you instead of continuing this constant walk back?
You could answer this:
> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.
Or I guess wait that's not important anymore because it's not really about that... it's about stopping oil from going to China.
So more importantly then, this:
> Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves.
Perhaps the answer to this last question is you are so self-satisfied of the future and of your knowledge of Iran that you don't think it's a gamble? Maybe the price of dead Americans is worth it to stop oil flow to China? Where this started was this self-satisfied extrapolation from Greece, to Europe, to presumably the shores of America? How dare politicians risk lives by allowing this trend to develop, that you somehow saw as inevitable through your powers of clairvoyance. That was your position, right? Somehow we got from that to your supposed knowledge of oil flow grand strategy and Iranian nationalism. So I'm asking, what makes you so confident that this war is worth it? You see no risk? You have no doubts? Could you at least acknowledge the act of war is itself a gamble?
I'd appreciate an answer on that since this back and forth has gone on for a while and I've tried to respond to all the points you have brought up. Thanks
What is your evidence that given all we know about Iran, and the fact that they have 60%-enriched uranium, they are not building a bomb? Why do they need 60%-enriched uranium?
> Is that your claim?
No. My claim is that from a geopolitical point of view containment of China is the goal, and the war in Iran is just one step. Politics never about telling the truth -- it's about achieving goals.
You may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.
> You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?
What does it have to do with anything? Can you form a coherent argument?
> I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with: <...>
> Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.
Iran has no civic institutions and no culture of responsible governance?
> Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state.
The sectarian dynamics in Iraq, Syria and Lybia do not exist in Iran.
Yeah, "reports" about CIA are real. Sure.
> Great track record of intervention here.
There is no intervention though.
> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.
Have you seen the map? Open it, and then see where Cyprus is located.
Barely hit next door. Yeah.
> you don't think it's a gamble?
Of course it is. Like any other decision. You make the calculus and decide if the reward is worth the risk.
I am not sure any answer of mine you will find satisfiable. In your view, only 100% result justifies the risk. The reality is that you will never have 100% guarantee. For you inaction regardless of the consequences is the answer, for me it's better to act with uncertainty.
Finally, you assume (without evidence) that Iranian Regime is a rational actor. Once you change this assumption, the calculus will change.
I never said a 100% guarantee. You may put words in the president's mouth if you wish, please don't put words in mine.
You aren't answering my questions at all. You are evading them. The argument is clear. This war is not worth the potential cost. Iran was not closer to getting a weapon. Americans are at more risk today than they were yesterday.
Your walk back has now reached its peak.
> There is no intervention though
I mean what to even say to this?
The rest of it is more or less the same. But I want to highlight how you ended, as really that takes the cake. It's a talking point that comes up a lot so I want to call it out.
"The Iranian Regime is not a rational actor". I saw that coming from a mile away. Thanks for finally putting your cards on the table. So now you can inflate the boogeyman to be as big as you wish. Iran isn't rational, they crazy. Time to bomb!
This the refuge of unserious people. It was a rational actor, as terrible a regime as it is/was. The evidence of that is clear. They were a regime/nation-state that negotiated, declared war, sold oil, prioritized their own existence and acted to preserve their own power. Why aren't they rational? Because the Supreme leader wears a fundamentalist outfit? Because his religious fundamentalism comes from a religion that isn't yours? Because they make threats (which they for the most part never carry out)? You know that many times in the past they warn their neighbors (including Israel) of their so-called reprisal attacks ahead of time so they don't cause a booboo miscalculation and accidentally get annihilated? Like how they are getting annihilated now? If they are so irrational why didn't they send off all these weapons at any time before this? Why did they wait to get attacked? How does Israel penetrate so deeply into their command structure if its such an irrational regime? You would think any attempt at infiltration would be confused by the totally crazy irrational society they have. I mean what a nutcase regime. Jeez what a crazy irrational country attacking the countries that attacked them and bombed out their entire leadership or tacitly supported it.
Totally nuts man.
Disappointing. This just means you don't want to have a serious argument. What is clear is the projection, and that there is nothing more to be gained from this exchange. I have tried to argue in good faith this whole time. Have a good day.
This sounds like a straw man. What reason does Iran have to attack Europe? They don't engage in "mowing the lawn" like some other entity in the region.
"Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance"
I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks.
Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close.
Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak.
Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States.
When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things? The latter is the threat to Americans here. You don't stop it by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.
It would be pretty dangerous to attribute such a thing (if it ever happened) to Iran without concrete evidence. Some stateside lone wolf nut might claim to be acting on behalf of Iran, but it doesn't make it true. It's pretty easy in America for anyone to get a gun and attempt a murder. It doesn't mean any government provided any meaningful capability, nor should we believe so until confronted with strong evidence.
Apparently the FBI recently stymied a plot that involved using drones deployed from offshore vessels targeting california. As to what that vessel might be, a submarine, a missile cruiser, a civilian vessel knowing or not, a container on a ship, the report left no indication.
Either way the target is tempting. Japan attempted it using the technology of their time which was entirely unguided. Today drones are precision instruments vs random dart balloon bombs.
And the evidence of this plot and Iranian involvement is what?
A quick Google search yielded nothing in that regard... honestly it just doesn't sound that credible in an age where increasingly anyone can say anything. Why believe such a claim without evidence? Because it was the FBI that said it?
There are tempting targets all over the place. Like in the Middle East itself that Iran can barely hit. Their defenses and their leaders are being blown to smithereens. But you want me to believe they might have a submarine off the coast of California?
"The FBI warned police departments in California in recent days that Iran could retaliate for American attacks by launching drones at the West Coast, according to an alert reviewed by ABC News.
“We recently acquired information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United State Homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran,” according to the alert distributed at the end of February. “We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.”"
What is this supposed to prove? I asked for evidence. This is "the FBI said so" and as another commenter noted, in the vaguest terms possible.
Am I supposed to be impressed by this? "Allegedly aspired" so it's not even a credible plot, the allegation is they have aspirations to do something and that's all we got. We have no information about how they would actually ever carry this out. Jeepers, I'm scared. We're blowing their country to smithereens and they have "aspirations" of doing something back. Shocking. Those police officers must have been positively shaking in their boots.
In support of your comment, the FBI under Trump has become increasingly politicized, to the point it's merely doing and saying whatever Trump's administration wants them to say. Nothing coming from them is credible. Of course they are going to inflate the chance of the Iranians magically developing a mini-sub and striking Florida or whatever.
What an amazing standard of proof you operate under.
Luckily our legal system more often than not makes it literally illegal to operate under your standard. How many were victims of people like you before they had to codify that principle I wonder. Truly stunning. If only the same level of rigor were enforced for presidents of the United States taking the nation to war. Think of how many more countless lives could be saved.
And we all figure out it's possible on our own. Eveywhere possibly important might possibly be a target. Just because our emasculated FBI doesn't sniff it out doesn't mean it's not possible.
reply