Doubtful that the Emergencies Act will be needed, let alone to ferret out and arrest who is behind this criminal act. For one, it took place in an isolated area and on Indian land. Secondly, the local RCMP there likely have a good idea who was behind it. While it is possible that some pale faces from out of town were among the perpetrators, it is more than certain that it was spearheaded by local aboriginals already well known to the police. BTW, Ian Runkle is a well known criminal defence lawyer who practices here where I live. He is often on local TV commenting on various newsworthy trials and topics.

The closest I ever came to buying a "Signature" guitar is the Larrivée C-03 Tommy Emanuel model. I played one at Spruce Tree Music in Madison. It was an awesome guitar but, I just could not bring myself to buy it. Mostly because of its "Signature" guitar status. I don't understand the need for an article explaining the gender gap on signature guitars. There have been signature guitars for women before. The reason these models were few is very simple, there are very few women guitar players and even fewer "stars". The reason these models were "short lived" is simple. The shit "music" they recorded was also short lived and for good reason. lol I mean, Joan Jett? The one hit wonder? LMFAO I bet sales of this guitar will not be brisk. Of course, Jett’s new guitar is not the only signature model made for a female musician. In the 1990s, Fender released its first signature Stratocaster for a woman, the blues-rock legend Bonnie Raitt; in the 2010s, B.C. Rich released the Lita Ford Signature Warlock Electric Guitar. Other women with their own models include Sheryl Crow’s Gibson acoustic, Avril Lavigne’s Squier Telecaster and Newporter acoustic, Chryssie Hynde’s Telecaster, and Taylor Swift’s Big Baby Taylor acoustic. Most of these models, however, were sadly short-lived.

Morphine drips. Just sayin’

Dark Matter Matters!

difficult airway

[image: 1645274517738-screen-shot-2022-02-18-at-8.35.52-am.png.jpg]

Update and more: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-drive-flags-macos-ds-store-files-for-copyright-violation/ Google Drive was seen flagging '.DS_Store' files generated by macOS file systems as a violation of its copyright infringement policy. '.DS_Store' is a metadata file commonly seen by Apple users when they transfer their folders and archives from a macOS to a non-Apple operating system, like Windows. Is '.DS_Store' copyrighted? A user reported seeing a ".DS_Store" file on their Google Drive being flagged for violating Google's 'Copyright Infringement' policy. And, it seems this isn't the first time it's happened either. A similar issue was experienced by some last month, specifically with '.DS_Store' files [1, 2]. Apple users often see mysterious '.DS_Store' appear when they copy ZIP files and folders from their macOS devices to another operating system, such as Windows. '.DS_Store' files are automatically generated by macOS' Finder application to store custom attributes and metadata such as icon information and background image location. This information helps Finder render the layout as per the user's preferences. On macOS systems, .DS_Store files remain typically hidden within Finder. In fact, the file is analogous to the hidden desktop.ini and thumbs.db files seen occasionally by Windows users (if their Explorer settings permit showing 'hidden' files). However, when uploading archives and folders to a third-party cloud service, such as Google Drive or Dropbox, the storage provider's file manager may regardless show ".DS_Store," "desktop.ini," and other such files, otherwise obscured on a user's personal computer. It isn't known yet what causes this behavior, and BleepingComputer has been unable to reproduce the issue at the time of writing. One plausible assumption we had was, Google relies on checksums to keep track of copyrighted content, and a possible hash-collision between copyrighted files and benign files sharing the same hash can trigger false violations. Last month, Google Drive users were left baffled on seeing their nearly empty files being erroneously flagged for violating the company's copyright infringement policy. These text files contained nothing other than numbers like 0, 1, 173, 174, 186, and a few others. the issue with files that contain just digits, as opposed to '.DS_Store' files. The latter could be quite unique for individuals, producing specific hashes—and as such hard to reproduce. But, this theory has not been authoritatively confirmed. BleepingComputer reached out to Google with specific questions to better understand the issue. A Google spokesperson explained that in January the company discovered and addressed the aforementioned issue that "impacted a small number of Drive files." The same month, Google says, they had corrected "all known cases where files were incorrectly flagged for violating Google's Copyright Infringement policy" and took steps to prevent this behavior from recurring.

Release The Kraken!

Friends don't let friends vote for Democrats.

All that said, Simon never trusted me enough to get into a trailer, LOL.

@Doctor-Phibes said in Jon's Tribes: @Mik said in Jon's Tribes: @Doctor-Phibes said in Jon's Tribes: @Horace said in Jon's Tribes: belong to the tribe of purely objective free thinkers. I must say, it is lonely here. I've never seen you at any of the meetings. I think you might have the address wrong. he said 'thinkers', not 'wankers'. I was going to say that the reason you don't identify with parties is because you never get invited to any, but I restrained myself. Some amusing shorthands are not to be used, lest they be taken literally!

@Mik said in "Dibs" in Chicago: Agreed. But in a situation where you have to work HARD to clear the space? It's really the only thing that makes any sense in a cooperative neighborhood. But then we don't see a lot of cooperative these days. No exactly, I fully agree with you! Work creates ownership.