|
General » rec.autos.driving » A scam too far...
| A scam too far... [message #793048] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 06:54 |
|
PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793059 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 09:06 |
|
On Feb 3, 9:54=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
With the digital cameras and their large storage, this is long overdue.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793060 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 09:15 |
|
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pYCdnTMJAKoONTvanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
>
Good idea, but there's still a possible flaw.
Digital cameras do not seem to have administrator modes vs. user modes, and
so it's still possible for the parking enforcement person to set the date
and time of the camera for the date and time that they want on the
fraudulent ticket, then photograph the car parked, and then write the
fraudulent ticket for that date. It's extra work for sure, but if the
parking enforcement person really wants to write a fraudulent ticket, it's
hypothetically as easy as:
1. Parking enforcement person wants to write a fraudulent ticket for a
vehicle, let's say for this example they will write a fraudulent ticket on 6
February 2008.
2. Parking enforcement person sets the camera date and time for 02/06/2008
and some arbitrary time that would make the ticket credible as an expired
meter ticket.
3. Parking enforcement person then takes a photo of the vehicle parked on
02/05/2008 (even if the meter is not expired on 02/05/2008), but the
metadata of the photo and the date shown on the photo shows as 02/06/2008.
4. Parking enforcement person then writes a fraudulent ticket on 02/06/2008,
and submits the digital photo proof with a date clearly showing as
02/06/2008.
So why is this still conceptually possible? Because the following text:
"a) Digital photograph required.--At the time a parking ticket is issued,
the person issuing the ticket shall take a digital photograph clearly
depicting the rear of the ticketed vehicle and all registration information
on the vehicle's registration plate. The photograph shall be attached to the
municipality's copy of the parking ticket."
....does not also require clear digital photo evidence of the vehicle being
parked with the meter also clearly showing as expired.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793073 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 15:58 |
|
In article <MJSdnWQs4foGVDvanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d [at] nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pYCdnTMJAKoONTvanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>>
>> PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
>>
>
> Good idea, but there's still a possible flaw.
>
> Digital cameras do not seem to have administrator modes vs. user modes, and
> so it's still possible for the parking enforcement person to set the date
> and time of the camera for the date and time that they want on the
> fraudulent ticket, then photograph the car parked, and then write the
> fraudulent ticket for that date. It's extra work for sure, but if the
> parking enforcement person really wants to write a fraudulent ticket, it's
> hypothetically as easy as:
>
> 1. Parking enforcement person wants to write a fraudulent ticket for a
> vehicle, let's say for this example they will write a fraudulent ticket on 6
> February 2008.
>
> 2. Parking enforcement person sets the camera date and time for 02/06/2008
> and some arbitrary time that would make the ticket credible as an expired
> meter ticket.
>
> 3. Parking enforcement person then takes a photo of the vehicle parked on
> 02/05/2008 (even if the meter is not expired on 02/05/2008), but the
> metadata of the photo and the date shown on the photo shows as 02/06/2008.
>
> 4. Parking enforcement person then writes a fraudulent ticket on 02/06/2008,
> and submits the digital photo proof with a date clearly showing as
> 02/06/2008.
>
> So why is this still conceptually possible? Because the following text:
>
> "a) Digital photograph required.--At the time a parking ticket is issued,
> the person issuing the ticket shall take a digital photograph clearly
> depicting the rear of the ticketed vehicle and all registration information
> on the vehicle's registration plate. The photograph shall be attached to the
> municipality's copy of the parking ticket."
>
> ...does not also require clear digital photo evidence of the vehicle being
> parked with the meter also clearly showing as expired.
It was clearly designed for when the tickets were written by filling in
random plate numbers. The lying about time is still possible and not even
addressed. Odds are that's the direction the scam will move.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793080 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 16:31 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793082 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 16:49 |
|
In article <aobeq3ltffnu29pptl474b90nic0sldcqr [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:54:27 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>
>>PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>>
>>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
>
> Thanks for the tip. I just bought some Adobe stock, as I anticipate a
> large upswing in the sales of PhotoShop on the part of PA meter maids.
>
> BTW, I think it's pretty cool that the guy in the wheelchair has a
> vanity plate with the single letter 'P' on it. If Illinois will issue
> single-letter vanity plates, you should get that for your Mustang. :)
I would prefer 'B'. Or maybe BDR 529
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793095 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 18:53 |
|
Scott in SoCal:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:54:27 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >
> >PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
> >
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
>
> Thanks for the tip. I just bought some Adobe stock, as I anticipate a
> large upswing in the sales of PhotoShop on the part of PA meter maids.
You think that the meter maids have the intelligence required to work
photoshop? ;)
> BTW, I think it's pretty cool that the guy in the wheelchair has a
> vanity plate with the single letter 'P' on it. If Illinois will issue
> single-letter vanity plates, you should get that for your Mustang. :)
I wonder if FK CALROG or KRL SUX is taken..... ;-D
--
"Why? Why?? WHY??? Why is it that most people who
are against abortion are people you wouldn't
want to fuck in the first place??"
--George Carlin
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793107 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 21:16 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793114 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 22:26 |
|
In article <pYCdnTMJAKoONTvanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>
>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
It only requires a picture of the car's license plate, not sufficient
information to show the violation.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793119 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 22:41 |
|
"richard" <I.dont.care [at] do.you> wrote in message
news:99seq3dn1u9i6pomeg220ev12566eknca8 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:54:27 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>
>>PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>>
>>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
>
> Good idea. Considering the fact that "Discovery Channel" has been
> airing a new series called "Parking wars".
That Parking Wars program was billed as some kind of human interest story,
idea being that meter maids are human, and if we could just walk in their
shoes for a while, we might learn that they are lovable (or at least
likeable) human beings.
Actually, after watching just two episodes of that program, it seems to have
back-fired, in my case. If anything, I think those morons are worthy of the
disgust that most people feel when they hear the term "meter maid". Just
doing their job? Yeah, if mindlessly causing ordinary people no end of
headaches for no reason other than financial gain can be called a "job".
In one episode I saw, the lady (I'll be kind) was actually shown hiding
around the corner waiting impatiently and GLEEFULLY for 4PM, when she could
ticket and tow a bunch of cars that were -legally- parked, but which were
required to be moved by 4PM. It was so stereotypical, I couldn't believe
that they actually AIRED that. People think of meter maids watching their
watches for the second that the meter expires and writing tickets in advance
so they can pounce the moment the red flag pops up. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE
WAS DOING!!! But she took it a step further, and had the cars towed. God,
it made my blood boil watching that.
I've had to dispute parking tickets that I did not deserve, so these kind of
tactics really piss me off. In one case, I parked between two signs stating
that I couldn't park between the signs after 5PM. I was parked there from
12PM to 2PM, and found a parking ticket on my car at 2PM when I went to
leave. Got the ticket dismissed eventually, but it still ruined my whole
fucking afternoon. Bastards. I mean, first I had to find the place where
they expected me to pay the parking ticket, then I had to find the office
where disputes were handled, then I had to fill out a dispute form (in
triplicate, no less), then I had to find another office in another building
so I could deliver it in person. (or I could have mailed it in, but I was
so pissed I wanted it settled, and not be told later that they never
received the right form, etc.) By the time I left that town (I didn't live
there) it was almost dinner time, and I should have been home hours ago.
The alternative would have been to pay the fine. Then years later, the DMV
would refuse to renew my registration, claiming I had an unpaid parking
ticket from... (I've had THAT happen to me also . . . no UNPAID parking
tickets, but DMV records screwed up, so my car registration was held for
ransom until I proved my innocence. Like I need THAT headache, right?)
In another episode of parking wars, they showed the boot team. What really
pissed me off about them, yeah I know they have a job to do but...
They are driving slowly down the street entering **** EVERY **** plate
number they see into a computer system until they find one with unpaid
parking tickets. When the computer comes up with a match, they boot it.
Whether it's legally parked or not. Considering how fucked up state records
get in regards to parking tickets and whether they are paid or not, I just
KNOW that some poor guy has found his car booted due to parking tickets he
didn't know he had, or parking tickets that he PAID ALREADY. This probably
happens frequently. But I doubt if they'll show THAT GUY on TV. But they
glorify the booting squad like they are fucking heroes or something. It
makes me ill just thinking about it. -Dave
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793120 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 22:40 |
|
In article <99seq3dn1u9i6pomeg220ev12566eknca8 [at] 4ax.com>,
richard <spam [at] google.dom> wrote:
>
>As for the cameras, a person would need to be in charge of them.
>Ensuring that each camera used that day had the correct date and time,
>and rechecked upon return. Perhaps they could work with a manufacturer
>and make it impossible through software to ensure the "meter maid"
>could not falsify the photo's date and time stamp.
Such forensic cameras already exist.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793127 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 23:20 |
|
On Feb 4, 2:16 pm, richard <I.dont.c... [at] do.you> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:54:27 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com
>
> And part of the law should automatically grant a grace period. Say
> like 10 minutes. So any citation issued immediately upon expire would
> not be allowed.
Apparently, you don't park where I do. Milwaukee meters and other
I've seen in the past dozen years all first go to "Expired" mode and
then after your 'grace period', it changes to "Violation" mode. Heck,
even the old mechanical ones I remember had two flags. "Expired" was
yellow and "Violation" was red, so the reader could see 'em easily
from a distance.
--
C.R. Krieger
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793132 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 23:57 |
|
In article <fo80o9$6jt$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Dave wrote:
> In one episode I saw, the lady (I'll be kind) was actually shown hiding
> around the corner waiting impatiently and GLEEFULLY for 4PM, when she could
> ticket and tow a bunch of cars that were -legally- parked, but which were
> required to be moved by 4PM. It was so stereotypical, I couldn't believe
> that they actually AIRED that. People think of meter maids watching their
> watches for the second that the meter expires and writing tickets in advance
> so they can pounce the moment the red flag pops up. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE
> WAS DOING!!! But she took it a step further, and had the cars towed. God,
> it made my blood boil watching that.
Makes me wonder about the sanity of anyone that is for government health
care. Imagine a bunch of meter maid types checking up on what you eat!
> happens frequently. But I doubt if they'll show THAT GUY on TV. But they
> glorify the booting squad like they are fucking heroes or something. It
> makes me ill just thinking about it. -Dave
Oh come on, it's just a conspiracy theory that the TV is glorifying the
mechanisms of a police state. :)
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793157 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 04:35 |
|
>> In one episode I saw, the lady (I'll be kind) was actually shown hiding
>> around the corner waiting impatiently and GLEEFULLY for 4PM, when she
>> could
>> ticket and tow a bunch of cars that were -legally- parked, but which were
>> required to be moved by 4PM. It was so stereotypical, I couldn't believe
>> that they actually AIRED that. People think of meter maids watching
>> their
>> watches for the second that the meter expires and writing tickets in
>> advance
>> so they can pounce the moment the red flag pops up. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
>> SHE
>> WAS DOING!!! But she took it a step further, and had the cars towed.
>> God,
>> it made my blood boil watching that.
>
> Makes me wonder about the sanity of anyone that is for government health
> care. Imagine a bunch of meter maid types checking up on what you eat!
>
Oh, you mean like the state of Mississippi, perhaps? From another ng, they
(Mississippi) are passing a law soon. The law states (no, I didn't make
this up) that if you are a restaurant owner, you can lose your business
license for serving food to obese customers. I'll bet you still think I
made that up now, don't you?
(just one link to prove I didn't make it up)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/02/ms_fat.html
Some stories I read have unspecified remedies, others say repeat offenders
could lose their business license
Next logical step? Obese will be banned (in Mississippi) from entering
grocery stores, supermarkets, convenience stores and all other buildings
where food is for sale. That is, after all, what this restaurant ban is
about . . . the people of Mississippi have spoken, and they want to make it
illegal for the obese to eat in their state!!!
Gonna raise hell with the tourist trade, for sure. Also could lead to some
sticky situations for the diabetics (many of whom are obese) who need to eat
regularly or ummmm, DIE. As I wrote elsewhere, I can see the lawsuit
already . . . you allowed my mom to die!!! (but but...I was just following
the LAW, lady!)
Hmmmmm....and too bad about the MS economy going down the shitter when truck
drivers refuse to deliver to that state, as they'd prefer to deliver to
states in which they can ummmm, EAT. :) -Dave
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793158 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 04:35 |
|
On Feb 4, 2:57=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Makes me wonder about the sanity of anyone that is for government health
> care. Imagine a bunch of meter maid types checking up on what you eat!
I thought the joke writers were still on strike
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793159 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 04:40 |
|
On Feb 4, 7:35=A0pm, "Dave" <no... [at] nohow.not> wrote:
> >> In one episode I saw, the lady (I'll be kind) was actually shown hiding=
> >> around the corner waiting impatiently and GLEEFULLY for 4PM, when she
> >> could
> >> ticket and tow a bunch of cars that were -legally- parked, but which we=
re
> >> required to be moved by 4PM. =A0It was so stereotypical, I couldn't bel=
ieve
> >> that they actually AIRED that. =A0People think of meter maids watching
> >> their
> >> watches for the second that the meter expires and writing tickets in
> >> advance
> >> so they can pounce the moment the red flag pops up. =A0THAT'S EXACTLY W=
HAT
> >> SHE
> >> WAS DOING!!! =A0But she took it a step further, and had the cars towed.=
> >> God,
> >> it made my blood boil watching that.
>
> > Makes me wonder about the sanity of anyone that is for government health=
> > care. Imagine a bunch of meter maid types checking up on what you eat!
>
> Oh, you mean like the state of Mississippi, perhaps? =A0From another ng, t=
hey
> (Mississippi) are passing a law soon. =A0The law states (no, I didn't make=
> this up) that if you are a restaurant owner, you can lose your business
> license for serving food to obese customers. =A0I'll bet you still think I=
> made that up now, don't you?
>
> (just one link to prove I didn't make it up)http://www.consumeraffairs.com=
/news04/2008/02/ms_fat.html
> Some stories I read have unspecified remedies, others say repeat offenders=
> could lose their business license
>
> Next logical step? =A0Obese will be banned (in Mississippi) from entering
> grocery stores, supermarkets, convenience stores and all other buildings
> where food is for sale. =A0That is, after all, what this restaurant ban is=
> about . . . the people of Mississippi have spoken, and they want to make i=
t
> illegal for the obese to eat in their state!!!
>
> Gonna raise hell with the tourist trade, for sure. =A0Also could lead to s=
ome
> sticky situations for the diabetics (many of whom are obese) who need to e=
at
> regularly or ummmm, DIE. =A0As I wrote elsewhere, I can see the lawsuit
> already . . . you allowed my mom to die!!! =A0(but but...I was just follow=
ing
> the LAW, lady!)
>
> Hmmmmm....and too bad about the MS economy going down the shitter when tru=
ck
> drivers refuse to deliver to that state, as they'd prefer to deliver to
> states in which they can ummmm, EAT. =A0:) =A0 =A0 =A0-Dave- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you have a diabetic friend who dais that, tell her/him to get the
straight dope from the MD. Is that person eating to die from
ignorance, from gluttony or just to end it all?
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793164 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 05:13 |
|
In article <fo8lg4$p4n$1 [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Dave wrote:
>>> In one episode I saw, the lady (I'll be kind) was actually shown hiding
>>> around the corner waiting impatiently and GLEEFULLY for 4PM, when she
>>> could
>>> ticket and tow a bunch of cars that were -legally- parked, but which were
>>> required to be moved by 4PM. It was so stereotypical, I couldn't believe
>>> that they actually AIRED that. People think of meter maids watching
>>> their
>>> watches for the second that the meter expires and writing tickets in
>>> advance
>>> so they can pounce the moment the red flag pops up. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
>>> SHE
>>> WAS DOING!!! But she took it a step further, and had the cars towed.
>>> God,
>>> it made my blood boil watching that.
>>
>> Makes me wonder about the sanity of anyone that is for government health
>> care. Imagine a bunch of meter maid types checking up on what you eat!
> Oh, you mean like the state of Mississippi, perhaps? From another ng, they
> (Mississippi) are passing a law soon. The law states (no, I didn't make
> this up) that if you are a restaurant owner, you can lose your business
> license for serving food to obese customers. I'll bet you still think I
> made that up now, don't you?
No, I know you haven't made it up because I read an article or blog post the
other day where the author had phoned the legislator who sponsored it to
make sure he was serious about it before writing on the subject.
This is only the begining of the nanny-state. Get a load of this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/NYTimes%20ad%20v3.pdf
What the ad refers to is the FDA at the request of big-pharma is going
about trying to make any competition impossible. Regulation does not
protect consumers in many cases, it is put in place to prevent,
discourage, and remove competition to those favored by government office
holders.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793169 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 05:44 |
|
If you have a diabetic friend who dais that, tell her/him to get the
straight dope from the MD. Is that person eating to die from
ignorance, from gluttony or just to end it all?
>>>
Huh? Diabetics have problems with blood sugar. Either too high or too low.
Either can kill you. If a diabetic ever tells you he/she must eat, you'd
better not kick that obese person (assuming that the diabetic is obese) out
of your restaurant. Diabetics with low blood sugar problems tend to carry
emergency supplies with them. But shit happens. If I was a restaurant
owner and a diabetic ordered food because of a diabetic incident, I'd serve
that person extra quick, even if it was against the law. (Which it could
be, if my business was in Mississippi). But I can see some stupid
restaurant manager saying HECK NO, the law is the law, blah blah
lah.... -Dave
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793172 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 05:51 |
|
>
> This is only the begining of the nanny-state. Get a load of this:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/NYTimes%20ad%20v3.pdf
>
> What the ad refers to is the FDA at the request of big-pharma is going
> about trying to make any competition impossible. Regulation does not
> protect consumers in many cases, it is put in place to prevent,
> discourage, and remove competition to those favored by government office
> holders.
Yup, remember the stink about people crossing the border into Canada to buy
prescription drugs cheaper and how U.S. lawmakers were trying to claim (with
a straight face) that the practice had to be stopped as the safety of the
drugs could not be guaranteed, if they were purchase out of the country?
Like drugs can somehow be safe for Canadians and also poisonous to U.S.
citizens? Please...
On a side Note, why weren't the Canadians really really INSULTED by that
argument??? Essentially some idiots in the U.S. were saying, we don't want
our children exposed to those dangerous poisons, but let the Canadians eat
it, that's A-OK. -Dave
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793176 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 06:15 |
|
Dave wrote:
> Next logical step? Obese will be banned (in Mississippi) from entering
> grocery stores, supermarkets, convenience stores and all other buildings
> where food is for sale. That is, after all, what this restaurant ban is
> about . . . the people of Mississippi have spoken, and they want to make
> it illegal for the obese to eat in their state!!!
Which makes me wonder. Mississippi has one of the highest rates of
obesity in the US. One would think that a law like this would have
passed in a state with a lower rate of obesity.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793219 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 20:42 |
|
In article <e07b6aaf-b174-4224-8af7-cae008bda67b [at] e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Motorhead Lawyer <88.535is [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Apparently, you don't park where I do. Milwaukee meters and other
>I've seen in the past dozen years all first go to "Expired" mode and
>then after your 'grace period', it changes to "Violation" mode. Heck,
>even the old mechanical ones I remember had two flags. "Expired" was
>yellow and "Violation" was red, so the reader could see 'em easily
>from a distance.
In Philly, they go from showing the number of minutes to expired, in
just slightly less than the time on the meter (bastards). A yellow "Violation"
flag on an old mechanical meter used to indicate a jammed meter; I
don't think the electronic ones have an equivalent.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: A scam too far... [message #793341 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 19:21 |
|
On Feb 4, 12:54 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> PA parking tickets may soon require photographic proof or be thrown out:
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2204.asp
Instead of adding another unecessary law, how about they spend the
time and money
trying to figure out who the offending agents are. They can then
figure out if it was
individuals acting on their own. Those individuals could then be
disciplined. Then
the tax payer wouldn't have to pay for the cost of this new law.
---------------------------
Alex
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 11:53:41 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.14120 Sekunden |
