Slashdot Mirror

Also known as Subliminal Harassment. I have to warn you though, the contents of that page are not for the faint of heart, if not pure evil.

OH,Those Tombs....ha,ha.Anyway, If you look closely at reported "ALABASTER" pots, filled with Meat, gift to take ith ones souls journey OR PERHAPS ORGANS FROM DEAD, you will notice that they are not marble at all, just simple red clay fired with white GLAZE. Also I read that this, like Churhes of today, Was storage area where prestadigitations could be effected,in this case. so living would not be "truly" buried with dead, only these prepared "volunteers", ready to go.Storehouse of BEARERS for King.http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/tut_g allery4_thumb.jpgSigned:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRSHEK M.D.

The circles are the radius on which the paddles could swing around."

Western companies like Google, Microsoft, and the like could present a unified front in dealing with Beijing. They could agree to Western Principles (WP), an expanded version of the SP. Specifically, these companies agree to not assist the Chinese government, in any way, to abridge human rights. If Beijing retaliates by kicking Google out of China, then Beijing will expel all the other signatories to the WP. In this way, no Western company will gain an economic advantage over any other Western company.

How should we handle Taiwanese companies? Long before Yahoo's indifference to human rights in China, Taiwanese companies have routinely ignored human rights in China. In fact, when Western governments and companies curtailed their investments in order to punish Beijing for the incident at Tienanmen Square in 1989, the Taiwanese actually accelerated investments into China, thwarting Western economic sanctions against Beijing.

If Western companies abided by WP but Taiwanese companies ignored WP and human rights, then the Taiwanese companies would enjoy an economic advantage (in China) over Western companies. How can we deal with this situation? We boycott all products manufactured by or sold by Taiwanese companies. The boycott will level the playing field.

One unrealistic possibility for Gateway is to focus on the developing countries like China, but companies like Lenovo have the home-court advantage. Lenovo has close relationships with Taiwanese computer-chip manufacturers (who also sell their wares to the Chinese military in Beijing). Lenovo can also exploit ultra-low-cost labor in China.

How can Gateway compete against Lenovo? Gateway cannot. IBM could not and sold its PC division to Lenovo.

I do not know for sure, but Solitare may have been included in Windows as a way of showing the users how "drag and drop" works. Too bad that game has gotten out of hand. I went into an office yesterday, and the guy in charge was on a Windows XP machine, playing (you guessed it) Solitare. Too bad there are so few little games like that included in Windows.
Sometimes I want to just give them a cd of my Knoppix remaster, so they can have a wider variety of games to play. You can bet these people are not connected to the internet, or they would be doing that, and not playing Solitare. I have some pages on Geocities, and they provide a little OS sniffer, so I can see what OS's visit the page. A lot of "Windows NT" seen there. I can imagine that may be surfing at work, and perhaps enjoying the broadband too.

King Tut died in 1982.

If a manager wanted to get rid of you enough, they could just make you quit. (Warning: Some very evil stuff in that link.)

Here is my basic problem with Islam.

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm#TAQIYYA

The claim that 'Islam encourages the development of science and technology', is a classical example of Taqiyya , ie a statement which is known to be the opposite of the truth. (The taqiyya dispensation allows, and indeed encourages Muslims to lie to Unbelievers)

TAQIYYA (sometimes spelled TAQQIYYA or TAQIYA) is the duty of Muslims to lie about the beliefs, methods and objectives of Islam to non-Muslims. [TAQIYYA_1, TAQIYYA_2, TAQIYYA_3, TAQQIYA_4 , TAQIYA_5, TAQIYYA_6].

Taqiyya (bad faith, deceit, contempt for the truth, false promises, evasion, deceptive moderation and crocodile tears for terrorist victims) negates any attempt at interfaith dialogue between Islam and other belief systems, because we infidels never know whether we're being told a pack of lies.

In Islam it's OK to lie and deceive Kafirs (infidels) because Islam is in a permanent state of war with all non-Muslims and deception is a legitimate tactic. The word or promise of a Muslim to a Kafir counts for nothing in the eyes of Allah.

So taqiyya means that the only time you can be sure that a Mullah is telling the truth is when he says he's lying! ...
http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/agenda.html

There goes a saying of the prophet of Islam that 'to lie is one of the major sins and Allah will hold you accountable, with the exception of these three' (in other words, in these three situations you can lie as much as you need to and Allah will not even blink): '(1) with your women; (2) in espionage jihad when you are a minority; and (3) in maintaining peace.' Thus the end justifies the means. (References)

There are many references to this- it's not a secret.
---

So HOW can I trust ANYTHING an islamic person says? It's okay for them to lie to me.

I don't believe in the existence of gods- but I do believe christians who follow their bible feel bad and shameful to lie to other people of any belief system. I trust christians in a way I can never trust islamic followers.

Hell as many posts here have revealed- there are NUMEROUS examples of mohammad artwork- including BY islamic artists and OF his face.

Yup, that's the Zelda series we're talking about. Not the CD-i game, which I haven't seen live, but even the still were far more awful than this series.

Ok, so now I finally know why this guy was named "Borland":

"...and it seems that it's often because the songwriter, composer and/or artist don't want to release their music via the flat-fee licensing model."

I obviously cannot speak for anyone but myself here, but here goes:

I have several good friends that are in bands as "professionals" (ie: they take their work seriously and are trying to "make it" in the music industry) and talking to them about this subject they say that sometimes the artists can't use this method due to contracts with their recording lable/organisation, not that they would not be open to it.

I am sure that there are quite a few that also do not want to release under flat fee models, but there are also many that are seeing the writing on the wall- change is happening.

What I hear from them also, is the established means to get exposed and sold has been via the massive marketing potential of the various distributers is seen as the traditional "best way" to get recognition as an artist, thus album sales/concert promotions.
There are many unfulfilled aspirations by many (most?) artists in the music industry, just as in "fame via Hollywood"....same-same.

The friends mentioned above made sure their contract allowed for online cd sales/downloads - my "computer geek" influence with them showed them a whole different path, which they used as another way in addition to the traditional model.
(shameless plug for Fashinetta and 60 Watt Jackass at FSU Records:(http://www.geocities.com/fsu_records/fsur ecords.html)- these are the friends of mine)

Change is a scary thing when your future/livelyhood is involved, and the old model just is not working correctly anymore. Now you have a lot of uncertainty in trying to pursue a career as a musician (and as a music distributer/record label, to be fair) with the "traditional" business model.

Life, tech, and most all else is dynamic...changes are inevitable or stagnation occurs.

Hopefully we (colectively) can "roll with the punches" and come out on top when the dust settles, but to expect no changes is just delusional,IMHO.

Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.

Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.

PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement

Last June, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation put an exclamation point after "grand challenge" when it announced one of the richest in history. The Grand Challenges for Global Health pledged $436.6 million (including $31.6 million from British and Canadian sources) toward solving some of the world's worst health problems. Preliminary funds have been granted to 43 groups attacking 14 challenges.

The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.

Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.

Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.

PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement

Last June, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation put an exclamation point after "grand challenge" when it announced one of the richest in history. The Grand Challenges for Global Health pledged $436.6 million (including $31.6 million from British and Canadian sources) toward solving some of the world's worst health problems. Preliminary funds have been granted to 43 groups attacking 14 challenges.

The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.

Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.

Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.

PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement

Last June, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation put an exclamation point after "grand challenge" when it announced one of the richest in history. The Grand Challenges for Global Health pledged $436.6 million (including $31.6 million from British and Canadian sources) toward solving some of the world's worst health problems. Preliminary funds have been granted to 43 groups attacking 14 challenges.

The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.

Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.

Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.

PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement

Last June, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation put an exclamation point after "grand challenge" when it announced one of the richest in history. The Grand Challenges for Global Health pledged $436.6 million (including $31.6 million from British and Canadian sources) toward solving some of the world's worst health problems. Preliminary funds have been granted to 43 groups attacking 14 challenges.

The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.

Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.

Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.

PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement

Last June, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation put an exclamation point after "grand challenge" when it announced one of the richest in history. The Grand Challenges for Global Health pledged $436.6 million (including $31.6 million from British and Canadian sources) toward solving some of the world's worst health problems. Preliminary funds have been granted to 43 groups attacking 14 challenges.

The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.

I think I have permanant scars from that thing- or maybe those are from that other hand/eye coordination building technique I learned a year or two later.... Image available at http://www.geocities.com/big_al_1401/c64joy.jpg

I don't know about anyone else, but there's no way I'm clicking on that link

Remember the Commodore 64 joystick? It was basically the Atari 2600 joystick but with a triangular "stick". The button was mouted in the center (instead of off to the side) making you reach around further to push it. This thing had carpal tunnel written all over it! My hands would ache after just a few minutes of playing. I think I have permanant scars from that thing- or maybe those are from that other hand/eye coordination building technique I learned a year or two later.... Image available at http://www.geocities.com/big_al_1401/c64joy.jpg

The Intellivision controller was this stupid little disk. Why are you crying over its exclusion, ffs?! Now Colecovision's Super Action Controllers were wonders to behold!

i was in 6th grade science class watching live. before and after, i still wanted to be an astronaut.

i've often wondered how different things would have been had the challenger been the success that was expected. more women in science? expanded exploration instead of a near shutdown of the entire agency?

i do know that an entire generation of school children went from being incredibly curious about space to being afraid of space to being uninterested in space. which is very sad; since the people who died lived their lives towards the opposite cause.

various reading:
http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/NssEthicsAward .html
http://onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/MTImemo2.ht ml

creationism, ID, and evolution are not even necessarily contradictory.

let's say "God created intelligently, and his creations evolved."

thus picking one of creationism, ID, and evolution would be nonsensical, because if you believed this statement (I do not but that is a digression) then you then "believe" in all 3.

evolution is not a theory that deals with the origins of the universe.

creationism and ID are not beliefs (I did not say theories) that deal with the progression, proliferation, and diversification of life.

how did the universe begin? how did life begin? what was before that?

asimov had a fun story about it called The Last Question that is a nice little read. Arthur C Clarke has a short called The Nine Billion Names of God that isn't terrible reading either.

if this kind of thing interests you, The Abolition of Man might interest you as well, or even Chesterton's Orthodoxy.

No, I think you mean THIS!

Registered trademarks include:
'Mom', 'love' and 'screen door'.

Pffft, those crazy scientists and their insistence on silly ideas like "Dark Matter" and "Evidence".
The Evangelist crowd has had a dark-matter-free theory for gravity for years: Intelligent Falling.
Now it's just a case of getting this information into schools so that students can make an informed decision based on all the evidence.
I feel sick after saying that, I don't know how anyone could do it seriously.

Why "do" oldie active X (IE6 Coding)& open up problems. Oldies are oldies, get with it or view "gibberish".Its not like upgrade costs anything & is updated automatically for most. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

"QUICK TABS" are another IE 7 feature, with tabs opening up inside other displayed tabs. YIPPIE! SP3 & VISTA BETA: http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

Unfortuneately lower speed can only last so long. Amd stuck with outside processor "HYPER TRANSPORT" that can't take much more than DDR 400, basic work in processor (before cache is even involved) can now reach much higher speeds than AMD works with.Higher speed pci express with 40 or 96 lanes leaves AMD confused & in dust bin. AMD has zram & other exciting pumps, besides going DDR-2, yet hyper transport bus won't do in its present speed, gAME cARDS ARE ABOUT TO GO ABOVE HYPER TRANSPORT SPEEDS.IT JUST WON'T WORK WITH THAT "CLOG". http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

You misunderstood my intent. But, honestly, everyone would have probably missed it as well. At least, until the GP replied.

If I had told you and everyone else the GP was using bigoted reasoning to justify his position, you and others would have just assumed I was talking out of my ass. I didn't have direct proof. Now I do, because he could not resist the urge to take the bait. See your own reply for proof.

Given that, I probably could not ask directly , as he would become aggressive and probably attempt to paint me as an evil traitor that was ignoring the issue. Now, you are probably thinking BS. Well, now you understand why I did that. Because you will not believe anything I tell you without some kind of proof. I have to get him to show himself for what he is. So, to do that I have to provoke him.

I leave a way out, typically. So, that if he is a reasoning person, and I just misjudged him, he has a chance to show it. A reasoning person would respond much the same way you did, buy identifing logical flaws in the argument and/or potentially offering facts that conflict with the bait I planted in my post. Yes, I intentionally tainted the argument with flaws in order to provoke him. If he is a bigot, I goad him into showing himself for what he is. If he is reasonable, I can engage him in a constructive discussion.

Now, with that settled. I have a bone to pick with your reply:
"You are exaggerating. He is saying that opposition to the government in the form of free speech would not be allowed if it was fascist. You responded that we shouldn't have to wait for imprisonment, torture, and death to oppose an abusive government. Restriction on free speech is not the same as imprisonment, torture, and death and would certainly be a precursor to such."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be implying that dissent could not exist in a fascist society without being censored first. I know you are deconstructing my argument for logical flaws. But, you do it with the implied notion that what I said is impossible. For proof of my position, I suggest you look up a little something called the White Rose Society for an example. They got to squawk for quite a while before being executed. That doesn't mean the country wasn't fascist until after the government executed the society's members. By your argument, they would have been shut up soon after starting to complain, rather than having run for quite a while publishing literature before being captured by secret police and executed for treason. Also, back to my point in the previous post, it would not be wise to wait for the fascism to get so bad that people are executed merely for critisizing the leadership before critisizing the leadership.

There is a common, deliberate attempt to blur and hide the source of stem cells. Are they delivered from abortions or umbilical cords or from spinal cords?

Whether everyone else agrees or not, Catholics have strong objections to abortions and, thus, to any product derived from the tissues of aborted children. Thus there is a demand, froma Catholic perspective, and a refusal, from an anticatholic perspective, to differentiate cells derived from aborted babies.

on vaccines from aborted babies:
http://www.geocities.com/titus2birthing/VacProLife .html
http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/stemcells.html
www.priestsforlife.org

Taiwanese companies will supply most of the core technologies that Beijing needs to build this artificial sun. In the past, Taiwanese companies have collaborated with Beijing in exporting weapons technology to Iran.

Basically the main story was about a non-conventional fusion technology purportedly capable of burning hydrogen-1 and boron-11, which is a highly desirable fuel cycle since it produces no neutrons at all. My response was to detail my experience with a project to try to achieve the same fusion cycle, called p-B11 ("p" standing for "protium" or hydrogen-1 as opposed to "deuterium" which is hydrogen-2). Since this history involves some information that the tokamak afficionados find enormously embarrassing, they linked to a post of mine made to the Stormfrot forum where I stated my opinion of Jewish complicity in the failure of the fusion program. Then the block occurred. I did file a complaint with slashdot's editor but no action was taken. I find it all too predictable that people can credit Jews with nuclear technology projects over which they had disproportionate influence and everyone nods their heads in righteous agreement but if anyone assigns blame for failure of such programs not only is he a social pariah -- he's blocked from posting.

Of Plasmaks and Prizes (Score:1, Offtopic) by Baldrson (78598) *
on Saturday November 05, @10:43AM (#13958456)
(http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery | Last Journal: Wednesday July 21, @04:12AM)

Back when the cold fusion brouhaha hit, I ran across an intriguing idea of achieving p-B11 (p=proteum=Hydrogen-1 and B11 =Boron-11) fusion using artificial ball lightning, called the Plasmak. No adequate explanation of ball-lightning has yet been concocted resuling in reproducible free-floating plasmoids, and the guy (Paul Koloc) doing the work seemed to have a somewhat plausible idea. (And he did have background with the Spheromak group at the University of Maryland.) Most importantly there were actual photographs of these plasmoids floating in the open air without continuous power input! So I looked into it seriously for a while. During this time I also ran across others who were looking into a variety of p-B11 technologies including one of the founders of the US Tokamak program, Robert W. Bussard with his resurrection of Philo Farnsworth's inertial electrostatic confinement device sometimes called the Farnsworth Fusor.

Given:

1. all the foment in the air.
2. the fact that the Tokamak was to fusion as the Shuttle was to cheap access to space.
3. I had been working on getting NASA out of the launch service business via grassroots legislation.

...as the, then, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce (that had been successful in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, requiring NASA to buy commercial launch services whenever possible) I decided to go around to the various fusion contenders and come up with a set of about 10 milestones they all agreed would be worthy of prize awards, and came up with some legislation that would have awarded a series of $100M prizes, each for acheivement of one of those milestones.

This was 1992.

I never got very far with this legislation myself but about 3 years later, Bussard decided to submit this legislation -- with a kicker:

Basically the main story was about a non-conventional fusion technology purportedly capable of burning hydrogen-1 and boron-11, which is a highly desirable fuel cycle since it produces no neutrons at all. My response was to detail my experience with a project to try to achieve the same fusion cycle, called p-B11 ("p" standing for "protium" or hydrogen-1 as opposed to "deuterium" which is hydrogen-2). Since this history involves some information that the tokamak afficionados find enormously embarrassing, they linked to a post of mine made to the Stormfrot forum where I stated my opinion of Jewish complicity in the failure of the fusion program. Then the block occurred. I did file a complaint with slashdot's editor but no action was taken. I find it all too predictable that people can credit Jews with nuclear technology projects over which they had disproportionate influence and everyone nods their heads in righteous agreement but if anyone assigns blame for failure of such programs not only is he a social pariah -- he's blocked from posting.

Of Plasmaks and Prizes (Score:1, Offtopic) by Baldrson (78598) *
on Saturday November 05, @10:43AM (#13958456)
(http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery | Last Journal: Wednesday July 21, @04:12AM)

Back when the cold fusion brouhaha hit, I ran across an intriguing idea of achieving p-B11 (p=proteum=Hydrogen-1 and B11 =Boron-11) fusion using artificial ball lightning, called the Plasmak. No adequate explanation of ball-lightning has yet been concocted resuling in reproducible free-floating plasmoids, and the guy (Paul Koloc) doing the work seemed to have a somewhat plausible idea. (And he did have background with the Spheromak group at the University of Maryland.) Most importantly there were actual photographs of these plasmoids floating in the open air without continuous power input! So I looked into it seriously for a while. During this time I also ran across others who were looking into a variety of p-B11 technologies including one of the founders of the US Tokamak program, Robert W. Bussard with his resurrection of Philo Farnsworth's inertial electrostatic confinement device sometimes called the Farnsworth Fusor.

Given:

1. all the foment in the air.
2. the fact that the Tokamak was to fusion as the Shuttle was to cheap access to space.
3. I had been working on getting NASA out of the launch service business via grassroots legislation.

...as the, then, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce (that had been successful in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, requiring NASA to buy commercial launch services whenever possible) I decided to go around to the various fusion contenders and come up with a set of about 10 milestones they all agreed would be worthy of prize awards, and came up with some legislation that would have awarded a series of $100M prizes, each for acheivement of one of those milestones.

This was 1992.

I never got very far with this legislation myself but about 3 years later, Bussard decided to submit this legislation -- with a kicker:

Basically the main story was about a non-conventional fusion technology purportedly capable of burning hydrogen-1 and boron-11, which is a highly desirable fuel cycle since it produces no neutrons at all. My response was to detail my experience with a project to try to achieve the same fusion cycle, called p-B11 ("p" standing for "protium" or hydrogen-1 as opposed to "deuterium" which is hydrogen-2). Since this history involves some information that the tokamak afficionados find enormously embarrassing, they linked to a post of mine made to the Stormfrot forum where I stated my opinion of Jewish complicity in the failure of the fusion program. Then the block occurred. I did file a complaint with slashdot's editor but no action was taken. I find it all too predictable that people can credit Jews with nuclear technology projects over which they had disproportionate influence and everyone nods their heads in righteous agreement but if anyone assigns blame for failure of such programs not only is he a social pariah -- he's blocked from posting.

Of Plasmaks and Prizes (Score:1, Offtopic) by Baldrson (78598) *
on Saturday November 05, @10:43AM (#13958456)
(http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery | Last Journal: Wednesday July 21, @04:12AM)

Back when the cold fusion brouhaha hit, I ran across an intriguing idea of achieving p-B11 (p=proteum=Hydrogen-1 and B11 =Boron-11) fusion using artificial ball lightning, called the Plasmak. No adequate explanation of ball-lightning has yet been concocted resuling in reproducible free-floating plasmoids, and the guy (Paul Koloc) doing the work seemed to have a somewhat plausible idea. (And he did have background with the Spheromak group at the University of Maryland.) Most importantly there were actual photographs of these plasmoids floating in the open air without continuous power input! So I looked into it seriously for a while. During this time I also ran across others who were looking into a variety of p-B11 technologies including one of the founders of the US Tokamak program, Robert W. Bussard with his resurrection of Philo Farnsworth's inertial electrostatic confinement device sometimes called the Farnsworth Fusor.

Given:

1. all the foment in the air.
2. the fact that the Tokamak was to fusion as the Shuttle was to cheap access to space.
3. I had been working on getting NASA out of the launch service business via grassroots legislation.

...as the, then, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce (that had been successful in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, requiring NASA to buy commercial launch services whenever possible) I decided to go around to the various fusion contenders and come up with a set of about 10 milestones they all agreed would be worthy of prize awards, and came up with some legislation that would have awarded a series of $100M prizes, each for acheivement of one of those milestones.

This was 1992.

I never got very far with this legislation myself but about 3 years later, Bussard decided to submit this legislation -- with a kicker:

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

There is no doubt that FDR knew about the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor from hundreds if not thousands of monitored Japanese communications as well as highly placed sources from several different countries. In fact he wanted war so much he actually encouraged and abetted the attack, freezing Japanese funds in the US, cutting off oil to Japan, and feeding false information to Hawaii about the location of the Japanese fleet. There is more, but it could take a book to do it justice. Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html . FDR was guilty of treason.

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

WaPo is a CIA organ. Whaddya expect?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/CIAPRESS .HTM

Heres some pretty good science thanks to HOTFIX, I Listed what HOTFIX called SP3. They work & work very well.Media fixes seem most powerful, as well as large file sizes, stay away from catalog indexing or anything that slow computer down, just remove or restore, theres no trojan TOTAL WAR blitz kreig at all in there, JUST SEVERAL SLOGS MIXED INTO MESS. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

As Police Officer I have infiltrated Usenet & they are BAD. TERRIBLE more accurate. USENET migrated to GOOGLE as no one would pay $9.95 monthly for that CRAP. Make complaints, for good of our nation. To get feel of problem, enter Drugs into google search bar. 3/4 of links are inactive, yet some e.g. Alt.Drug Rec.Drug etc are ILLEGAL DRUG PARADISE. Thru USENETS' own local Storefront law schools, they will even deliver ILLEGAL NARCOTICS to your door front, just pay man & its' your. Talk about corrupt & insane, they got it all. "HOW" you ask, USENETb is "MANDAN" tribe of indians from Mandan/Bismark North Dakota, THEY got rights too, ya know. Thanks & complain, Heres list of proposed UPDATES THAT hOTFIX called: WINDOWS SP3; to work with. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

For those that missed joy of SP3 for WINDOWS XP cataloged by private source, I listed all updates that it contained. I had good luck with all except couple, so be prepared for "RESTORE" OR "ADD/DELETE" when you get LOGIE on updates.Any trouble will be slowdown from that last one specific update, not whole mess, which really helps computer puurrr. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

While I understand a distaste for copyright on philosophical grounds, by disregarding it completely you are actually making your work less attractive to most people.


The gp is not disregarding copyright, he is releasing the work from copyright.

Who told you that "most people" give a rat's ass how a work is released? I use the scroll bar to gague how desirable conditions on a work are. The more I have to scroll, the less desirable it is.

"This work was put in the public domain by its author _______" Is the perfect release in my book.

The new BSD license and/or Creative commons PD Dedication are a bit more obnoxious.

By the time you get to GPL 3 ... why bother?

Yeah, yeah. I know in addition to being a Slashdot poster, you are a Lawyer wannabe, and are ready to start objecting that simple release is no good and will get everyone who touches it sued to high heavens (by whom, one wonders...)

That's why I personnly like the No problem Bugroff license.

There is wisdom there.

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

The only thing that will lower launch costs, other than the threat of loss of something like the cold war is incentives for private enterprise.

Also, note that Taiwanese have already integrated their economy into the economy of mainland China although the political systems remain separate. There is the distinct possibility that the Taiwanese government may standardize on the Chinese version of Linux: that version is Red Flag Linux.

The Taiwanese have already invested more than $100 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China. Following the example set by mainland Chinese companies, Taiwanese companies have also sold weapons technology to Iran: Washington slapped sanctions against both Taiwanese companies and Chinese companies. (My source is "The Federal Register" for January 2005.)

More than 1 million Taiwanese have already emigrated to mainland China. They voluntarily choose to live under the authoritarian rules of Beijing and view being ruled by Beijing as simply an inconvenience. I suspect that most Taiwanese have used Red Flag Linux; certainly, most of the Taiwanese emigrants to China have used it.

As a side note, we Americans should never sacrifice our time, our money, or even our lives to prevent a mere inconvenience for the Taiwanese, and we should terminate our support for Taiwan. The Taiwanese have manipulated us Americans completely. (The Taiwanese constitution even insists that Tibet should be integrated into "One China".)

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

Get the facts about Taiwan. One million Taiwanese have voluntarily emigrated to China. The Taiwanese view being ruled by Beijing as just an inconvenience if they can earn a lot of money.

Don't sacrifice American lives or money to prevent a mere inconvenience for Taiwanese scum.