This is way off topic, but I have reset things and tried others. Slashdot can be difficult to navigate at times.

I attempted to but I can't figure it out, and I'm sick and tired of the pure HTML posting and moderating interface (it sucks wiffle balls).

I have enabled Slashdot.org in NoScript.

Thanks for the info. I understand and can appreciate the implications of the OFAC lists (basically a simple form of economic warfare against specific individuals and parties, preventing them from using certain global financial companies).

But, OFAC checks are supposed to be performed before any funds are transferred (prior to contract entry in my experience). So they generally can't be seized or impounded by the US financial system, because letting them in at all is illegal (I'm sure they are at least frozen if a company, such as Paypal, performs transactions for a restricted party).

Here are the OFAC lists:
http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

I'm not sure if this is good or not, but it does represent a valid usage of OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) regulations.

I've designed international life insurance admin systems that involved OFAC checks. Resolution requires manual verification.

OFAC provides a list of people that you cannot do business with if you are a US company (possibly if you have a US presence, I'm not sure though, I worked for a US company). It is basically a list of terrorists or otherwise sanctioned individuals that the US blocks financial transaction with.(Osama is still there as far as I know, he was our test case).

I've always considered OFAC to be a Federally mandated job program. Same for Sarbanes-Oxley (worked with that a lot as well). Just extra regulation requiring more bodies at every financial company.

I coined the never heard phrase "OFAC is to preventing terrorism as Sarbanes-Oxley is to preventing fraud" (I have an actuarial and IT background, so it's funny to me).

But in this case, initial appearances would suggest that the fine is justified. If the person on the OFAC list is justifiably on the list.

And that justification is my problem with the system. The rules are pretty secret, anyone could end up on the list and not be able to fight it. It's like the no-fly list which even impacted a Kennedy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Interesting for sure.

Thanks for the link, this is why I participate in Slashdot, to discover interesting nuggets I was not aware of previously.

I was not aware of Alan Watts prior to 15 minutes ago (I'm now listening to How to Make it Out of the Trap).

Thank you.

I love the phrase you used: "Thanks Jobs!".

I'm going to start using that, probably so much so that I annoy everyone around me...

They appear to be a news site of some sort, nothing much on there I would read though (how many articles can be there about HBOGo before saturation?).

Wouldn't any result involve a 2nd opinion?

Cases:
1. Dog finds nothing, perform biopsy, just in case (2nd opinion).
2. Dog finds cancer, perform biopsy to confirm (2nd opinion).

Or would you perform surgery on a dog's recommendation without a medical test?

Seems this dog would be a hypochondriac's best friend...

Your comment about dating got me thinking about the dating skit with Steve Guttenberg and Rosanna Arquette in the movie Amazon Women on the Moon.

I really enjoy that movie...

Seems like a clear cut Sarbanes-Oxley problem as well, an external audit would seem to be required given the intrusion they suffered.

Korea would probably be a better choice (still a declared war by the two Koreas).

I was more considering active wars, which, according to this Wikipedia page, Afghanistan is the longest ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

How about Elon Musk himself? He doesn't seem to be a patent shrill (he makes things, faster than we expect in most cases). He didn't create all of the patents he controls, but those working for him did (assumption, he may have bought some patents, bet he's using them). He's into solar, space, electric cars (all thanks Dr. Seuss, "and Mars").

He's pretty incredible actually. And he's more than a millionaire.

So we "rushed" to leave the single longest military engagement in the history of the United States? (Afghanistan is probably #1 now, but we're having problems with stability)

What would stability have looked like? Everyone getting lattes at Starbucks?

The reason we have ISIS is because the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a war of attrition from day one on the part of those who call the area home. The current result is not a surprise, the only question was how long would we occupy? The balance of power shifted and the bad guys just went underground, planning what they would do after the US left. And then they did it.

Smithsonian Magazine has an article in their current issue about copiers. The Soviet Union controlled access to copiers initially.

I haven't read the article yet, but it sounds interesting (Smithsonian Magazine is a gem, the TV channel, a travesty):

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

The topic at hand is a history chorus, and it's rhyming...