I left open the option "just for lulz". Yes, not everyone personally benefits from causing confusion.

I even wrote "literally" laundring it - like removing stains.

And there is a huge difference if your inside man is replacing extra money: it won't be missed, lowering the risk of detection.

Sorry I'm not comming up with laid out plans for the perfect crime as a response to a /.-post, but I guess getting finding a way to have someone trusted (like another bank) replacing your stained bills would be the way to go if you were in that line of business.

Well, it's not their money they're destroying...

Hmm... they can take the stained money, but neither deposit or spend it.....

They're probably going to leave behind stained money, as it is of no use to them. The bank, on the other hand, of course will re-deposit their own stained money....

But what if they would find out that there is MORE stained money found in the debris than there was inside?

Sounds to me like either a source for lulz or a way to wash (somehow literally) dirty money. (with a little inside help of course)

It's more like a random selection of yellow circles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Why do you need to route calls through a seperate business just to do some basic black/whitelisting? That's a basic feature of anything that can forward or route calls anyway.

How about ASKING the user if an unknown bootloader is detected during install? "Hey, did you install this here on purpose?"

Hmm, I might pick Cuba instead.

Don't forget safe tailgating by reducing the distance between cars as the first car can signal to the trailing car that it's going to break before even the actual brakes are moving. No need to factor in human reaction time anymore.

Humbug. What could possibly go wrong?

...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.

In which case the non-US citizens should be glad that the US authorities even went that extra mile and got a judge to sign a warrant and not NSL to get the data of foreign agents without judical oversight.

Foreign dependencies because multinational companies wnat to make business in those countries, too. Most countries demand that a part of your company is in that country if you want to sell something there. (Or at least a local distributor who is responsible for what is imported and sold)

It's tax reasons why those companies exist in Ireland, and not in France or Germany.

If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....

No. Obviously Google hasn't to pay a "shitload of taxes" as US (and other countries) laws allowed them to legally shift their money around the world.

You're mixing that up with "should have to pay"

Absurd and extreme: yes. Irrelvant: no

Just wanted to show where this line of thought ends when you think it through.

I think we agree that there is a middle ground. But touting that choices are always actual choices, is overly simplistic.