Well there is this little hang up called "probable cause"...its usually needed. You have none..I, however, have a written statement from an unbiased 3rd party saying you offered child porn for larger deposits. Plus you admit to being owner and operator to a possible illegal gambling site. Im sure they would be pretty interested. I have the unique ability of going directly to the top...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

The 5-4 decision split the court's two most conservative justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority and Justice Antonin Scalia penning the dissent.

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster.

The five-justice court majority disagreed, and in so doing gave police new authority to rely on anonymous tipsters.

The court has long held that officers can make stops based on anonymous tips, but the information in those tips must provide enough detail to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Thomas, the author of the majority opinion, concluded that because the 911 tipster said she had been forced off the road, she was an eyewitness, and that police could infer that there was reason to believe the truck driver was drunk.

Relying on 911 tipsters is reasonable, he said, because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers," and the calls can be recorded.

In a scathing dissent, fellow conservative Scalia called the Thomas opinion a "freedom-destroying cocktail" that would encourage "malevolent" tipsters to make false reports. It matters not whether the caller gave details about her alleged accident. The issue, said Scalia, is "whether what she claimed to know was true."

As to the inference that the truck's driver was drunk, Scalia pointed out that the police officers here followed the pickup for over five minutes — and "five minutes is a long time" — without any indication of drunken driving or even bad driving.

"After today's opinion," said Scalia, "all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk ... "

Joining Scalia in dissent were three of the court's more liberal members: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Joining Thomas in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer, who defected from the court's liberal bloc to provide the fifth and decisive vote.

40972 159th St E, Lancaster, CA 93535-7050 

Well its still there...I don't have any of that. Ok, Robert...better make it good cause Im about to go all out on you bro.

I did it for grins.  It turned out to be way easier than I expected.  I may file some more just for the heck of it.

I asked for how much he paid.  They have to tell me or come up with a good reason not to tell me.

Sounds interesting. How should we proceed?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=649521.0

Our mistake, we thought it has already been answered to you on the first page.

Information about prices of next batches will be supplied in time. We are not allowed to disclose any more information at this time.

Regards

Date format of this thread is incorrect and confusing.

Rainbowing
Rather than saving colors by their red, green, and blue components, JPEG separates colors into luminance and chrominance channels. The luminance is effectively the gray-scale intensitity of the image. The chrominance-red and chrominance-blue components identify the amount of coloring, independent of the full color's intensity.
With ELA and resaved images, there may be a visible separation between the luminance and chrominance channels as a blue/purple/red coloring called rainbowing. Drawing tools such as Photoshop can introduce a distinct rainbowing pattern surfaces that have near-uniform coloring.

Image   ELA
   
Computer-generated hands. ("NMRIH Hands", Matthew Fagan, 2009). The ELA shows red and blue rainbowing as background stripes. In other pictures, rainbowing may appear as large patches.

In general, Photoshop and other Adobe products generate a large amount of rainbowing. However, rainbowing is not an exclusive artifact to Adobe products. For example, the open source GIMP program generates little rainbowing and some high-quality camera photos may also include rainbowing along uniform-colored surfaces, such as white walls or blue skies. Some drawing tools, such as Microsoft's Paint, do not generate rainbowing.

The strong presence of rainbowing only suggests that an Adobe product, like Photoshop or Lightroom, was used to save the image. It does not identify intentional modifications.

Some digital cameras can produce rainbowing. However, there is an easy way to distinguish a camera's rainbowing from Photoshop. With a digital camera, the rainbowing is not restricted to the JPEG grid. The edges of a camera's rainbowing area will appear to have smooth contours. With Photoshop and other graphics applications, rainbowing is stictly limited to the JPEG grid. If the edges of the rainbowing area appear blocky in 8x8 or 16x16 chunks, then the rainbowing is likely caused by a graphics program such as Photoshop.

IPTC
The International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) standardized the metadata format used for recording information related to press images. Typically this includes the language set (usually UTF-8) and a version number. However, pictures intended for the mass media, such as those provided by Reuters and Getty Images, will usually include attributions such as the photograph's byline, description, location, and much more.
Most digital cameras do not generate IPTC information. Moreover, few cameras offer a means to enter in the photographer's name, photo description, and other details. (The few cameras that do support it make it extremely difficult to the point that virtually nobody uses this in-camera functionality.)

The presence of IPTC information, particularly with detailed text fields, indicates that the file was modified. At minimum, IPTC information was added by software after the photo was created. While this modification does not indicate that the picture was edited or modified, it does indicate that the file, as a whole, is not a straight-from-the-camera original.