Slashdot Mirror
Rolling DSL and Wireless Access Out In One Swoop
B1ackFa1c0n writes: "Finally those of us in telecom valley (Petaluma/Santa Rosa, CA)
are getting DSL with a twist... Vista Broadband is beginning to roll out DSL to those of us beyond the SBC limit. Rumours have it that every home that installs gets a wireless router and an antenna on the roof - effectively expanding Vista's wireless network at the same time. If enough people sign up, this would allow seamless wireless coverage for the whole area *at a profit* to Vista."
pf
first post? for me, at least...
fp
It is hard. How do I make the firewall? I try typing in "firewall" but I can't get it to work. Help me out and I'll hoooook you up with WinXP corporate that I got from my friend Ray.
Liberate your mind in two clicks or less.
you're screwed, dude!
My complaint about John Ashcroft:
I won't sugarcoat this letter. This is a very bitter letter.
Small children and the faint of heart should stop reading and leave
the room. I realize that some of you may not know the
particular background details of the events I'm referring
to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but
you can read up on them elsewhere.
Aside from the fact that it is better to remain silent
and be thought a fool than to speak and
remove all doubt, if we're to effectively carry out
our responsibilities and make a future for
ourselves, we will first have to prevent the
production of a new crop of the worst classes of
pernicious Philistines there are while remaining
true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations
we hold most dear. The primary point of disagreement
between myself and John Ashcroft
is whether or not if he can overawe and befuddle
a sufficient number of prominent
individuals, then it will become virtually
impossible for anyone to lead the way to the future,
not to the past. His grunts have cooperated closely
with self-satisfied ratbags on several
projects, which is another way of
saying that when I was younger, I wanted
to uplift individuals and communities on a global
scale to provide some balance to his one-sided
crusades. I still want to do that, but now I
realize that he thinks it would be a great idea to
nourish pretentious ideologies. Even if we overlook
the logistical impossibilities of such an
idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading
and inaccurate statements decide your position
on this issue. If Ashcroft continues to
biologically or psychologically engineer gutless
fast-buck artists to make them even more
blockish than they already are, the result can be a
tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters
that are at the center of experience for vast
segments of the population.
I'll talk about that another time. I have other,
more important, things to discuss now. For
starters, his claim that he has his moral compass
in tact is factually unsupported and
politically motivated.
If we let him increase society's cycle of hostility
and violence, who's going to protect us?
The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none
of the above. That's why it's important to stand
as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and
proclaim that it is a figment of Ashcroft's imagination
that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash.
Ashcroft's trucklers' thinking is fenced in by
many constraints. Their minds are not free
because they dare not be.
I believe that Ashcroft is talking out of his posterior.
Deal with it. Although he wants to perpetuate inaccurate
and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships,
if we fail to discuss the advantages of two-parent families,
the essential role of individual and family
responsibility, the need for uniform standards of
civil behavior, and the primacy of the work
ethic, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I cannot compromise with him; he is
without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without
reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he
must certainly take to heart: We must ratchet up our level
of understanding. Our children depend on that.
Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of
Ashcroft's analects to instill a general
ennui? Ashcroft, do you feel no shame for what
you've done? Take it from me: I find that
some of his choices of words in his prognoses would
not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted
"malignant" for "scientificogeographical" and
"self-serving" for "anthropomorphotheist." He controls a secret
underground empire. To top that off, this is not Nazi
Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state
would be eager to subordinate all spheres of society
to an ideological vision of organic community.
Not yet, at least. But he contends that he is a
paragon of morality and wisdom. Excuse me, but where
exactly did this little factoid come from? I was, however,
going to forget about the whole thing when it
suddenly occurred to me that I am now in a position to
define what I mean when I say that Ashcroft lectures
us about solecism so often that he may soon
become a major source of hearing loss. What I mean is
that I have avoided engaging in open debate with the most
boisterous brigands I've ever seen -- or even
acknowledging their existence -- for fear of
lending them any form of legitimacy. Sadly, lack of
space prevents me from elaborating further.
There is no place in this country where we are safe from
his accomplices, no place where we are not targeted
for hatred and attack. Creating needed
understanding is best achieved in a calm, rational environment
for a variety of reasons. For instance, ruthless know-nothings
like Ashcroft often think they have the right to open the
floodgates of pharisaism. No joke. Last I checked, if he would
abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be
much easier for me to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies.
(Yes, Ashcroft seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with
my statement that his grievances are exemplary of the forces minorities
must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of
the community, but that's a different story.) His diatribes have
kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and
challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful
adventure we share together -- life! The notion that he can be
reformed into an upright and honorable person may be a pleasant
and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can
happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they
doubtless also believe. For future reference, there is
something grievously wrong with those beer-guzzling prigs who
promote mediocrity over merit. Shame on the lot of them!
Please remember that Ashcroft says that the Earth is flat.
Yet he also wants to influence the attitudes of dominant
culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly
fatuitous. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask,
because we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light
of a bright, shining future in which stubborn peddlers of
snake-oil remedies like Ashcroft are utterly absent. The other
road leads into the darkness of favoritism. The question,
therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? A complete answer to that
question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have
to give you a simplified answer. For starters, Ashcroft maintains
that either he answers to no one or that he has been robbed of all
he does not possess. Ashcroft denies any other possibility. Does Ashcroft
really know anything about the tactics he claims to support? No, he doesn't.
It should come as no shock to anyone that I, for one, have a problem with
his use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase,
Ashcroft doesn't need to prove his claim that people don't
mind having their communities turned into war zones; he merely
accepts it as fact. To put it another way, anyone who believes that
children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy
candy at them is kidding himself. For proof of this fact, I must
point out that he has stated that the ideas of "freedom" and
"nativism" are Siamese twins. That's just pure interdenominationalism.
Well, in Ashcroft's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that we
can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where
everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams
not come true, but one of Ashcroft's bedfellows once said, "The
boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to Ashcroft's demands."
Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote
just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that it's easy
enough to hate Ashcroft any day of the week on general principles.
But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that
Ashcroft is up to, things that ought to make a real Ashcroft-hater
out of you. First off, there are two related questions in this matter.
The first is to what extent he has tried to call for a return to that
which wasn't particularly good in the first place. The other is whether
or not one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why doesn't Ashcroft
point a critical finger at himself for a change? On the surface, it would
seem to have something to do with the way that Ashcroft has an almost
mystical faith in careerism. But upon further investigation, one
will find that the next time he decides to instill a subconscious
feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his epigrams, he
should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? If the mass news
media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding
public attitudes to canonize illaudable ignoramuses as nomological
emblems of propriety, they would doubtlessly report that I am shocked
and angered by Ashcroft's shameless, lethargic improprieties. Such
shameful conduct should never be repeated.
Even though there is blood on Ashcroft's hands, this does not negate
the fact that Ashcroft likes solutions that feed us ever-larger doses
of his lies and crackpot assumptions. Could there be a conflict of
interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his sentiments
are not our only concern. To state the matter in a
few words, he has never satisfactorily proved his
assertion that his vices are the only true virtues. He has merely
justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." Need
I point out that I find much to disagree with in
Ashcroft's mottos? If I recall correctly, if you spot a bumper
sticker that reads, "Ashcroft's lapdogs are hardly strangers to
conformism," you're probably looking at my car. And that's
why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will,
on how to subject his deeds to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant.
There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I
can do it without first stating that every concert that he
attends rapidly degenerates into a free-for-all of slam dancing
and scattered fistfights. Now, that last statement is a bit of an
oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless
substantially true. I don't have time to go into this in as much
detail as I should, but if one dares to criticize even a
single tenet of Ashcroft's imprecations, one is promptly condemned
as cynical, frightful, ribald, or whatever epithet Ashcroft deems
most appropriate, usually without much explanation. Let me close
by reminding you that John Ashcroft's writings are worthy of a
good flush down the toilet.
WTF?!
My complaint about John Ashcroft:
I won't sugarcoat this letter. This is a very bitter letter.
Small children and the faint of heart should stop reading and leave
the room. I realize that some of you may not know the
particular background details of the events I'm referring
to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but
you can read up on them elsewhere.
Aside from the fact that it is better to remain silent
and be thought a fool than to speak and
remove all doubt, if we're to effectively carry out
our responsibilities and make a future for
ourselves, we will first have to prevent the
production of a new crop of the worst classes of
pernicious Philistines there are while remaining
true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations
we hold most dear. The primary point of disagreement
between myself and John Ashcroft
is whether or not if he can overawe and befuddle
a sufficient number of prominent
individuals, then it will become virtually
impossible for anyone to lead the way to the future,
not to the past. His grunts have cooperated closely
with self-satisfied ratbags on several
projects, which is another way of
saying that when I was younger, I wanted
to uplift individuals and communities on a global
scale to provide some balance to his one-sided
crusades. I still want to do that, but now I
realize that he thinks it would be a great idea to
nourish pretentious ideologies. Even if we overlook
the logistical impossibilities of such an
idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading
and inaccurate statements decide your position
on this issue. If Ashcroft continues to
biologically or psychologically engineer gutless
fast-buck artists to make them even more
blockish than they already are, the result can be a
tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters
that are at the center of experience for vast
segments of the population.
I'll talk about that another time. I have other,
more important, things to discuss now. For
starters, his claim that he has his moral compass
in tact is factually unsupported and
politically motivated.
If we let him increase society's cycle of hostility
and violence, who's going to protect us?
The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none
of the above. That's why it's important to stand
as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and
proclaim that it is a figment of Ashcroft's imagination
that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash.
Ashcroft's trucklers' thinking is fenced in by
many constraints. Their minds are not free
because they dare not be.
I believe that Ashcroft is talking out of his posterior.
Deal with it. Although he wants to perpetuate inaccurate
and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships,
if we fail to discuss the advantages of two-parent families,
the essential role of individual and family
responsibility, the need for uniform standards of
civil behavior, and the primacy of the work
ethic, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I cannot compromise with him; he is
without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without
reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he
must certainly take to heart: We must ratchet up our level
of understanding. Our children depend on that.
Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of
Ashcroft's analects to instill a general
ennui? Ashcroft, do you feel no shame for what
you've done? Take it from me: I find that
some of his choices of words in his prognoses would
not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted
"malignant" for "scientificogeographical" and
"self-serving" for "anthropomorphotheist." He controls a secret
underground empire. To top that off, this is not Nazi
Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state
would be eager to subordinate all spheres of society
to an ideological vision of organic community.
Not yet, at least. But he contends that he is a
paragon of morality and wisdom. Excuse me, but where
exactly did this little factoid come from? I was, however,
going to forget about the whole thing when it
suddenly occurred to me that I am now in a position to
define what I mean when I say that Ashcroft lectures
us about solecism so often that he may soon
become a major source of hearing loss. What I mean is
that I have avoided engaging in open debate with the most
boisterous brigands I've ever seen -- or even
acknowledging their existence -- for fear of
lending them any form of legitimacy. Sadly, lack of
space prevents me from elaborating further.
There is no place in this country where we are safe from
his accomplices, no place where we are not targeted
for hatred and attack. Creating needed
understanding is best achieved in a calm, rational environment
for a variety of reasons. For instance, ruthless know-nothings
like Ashcroft often think they have the right to open the
floodgates of pharisaism. No joke. Last I checked, if he would
abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be
much easier for me to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies.
(Yes, Ashcroft seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with
my statement that his grievances are exemplary of the forces minorities
must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of
the community, but that's a different story.) His diatribes have
kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and
challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful
adventure we share together -- life! The notion that he can be
reformed into an upright and honorable person may be a pleasant
and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can
happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they
doubtless also believe. For future reference, there is
something grievously wrong with those beer-guzzling prigs who
promote mediocrity over merit. Shame on the lot of them!
Please remember that Ashcroft says that the Earth is flat.
Yet he also wants to influence the attitudes of dominant
culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly
fatuitous. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask,
because we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light
of a bright, shining future in which stubborn peddlers of
snake-oil remedies like Ashcroft are utterly absent. The other
road leads into the darkness of favoritism. The question,
therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? A complete answer to that
question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have
to give you a simplified answer. For starters, Ashcroft maintains
that either he answers to no one or that he has been robbed of all
he does not possess. Ashcroft denies any other possibility. Does Ashcroft
really know anything about the tactics he claims to support? No, he doesn't.
It should come as no shock to anyone that I, for one, have a problem with
his use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase,
Ashcroft doesn't need to prove his claim that people don't
mind having their communities turned into war zones; he merely
accepts it as fact. To put it another way, anyone who believes that
children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy
candy at them is kidding himself. For proof of this fact, I must
point out that he has stated that the ideas of "freedom" and
"nativism" are Siamese twins. That's just pure interdenominationalism.
Well, in Ashcroft's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that we
can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where
everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams
not come true, but one of Ashcroft's bedfellows once said, "The
boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to Ashcroft's demands."
Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote
just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that it's easy
enough to hate Ashcroft any day of the week on general principles.
But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that
Ashcroft is up to, things that ought to make a real Ashcroft-hater
out of you. First off, there are two related questions in this matter.
The first is to what extent he has tried to call for a return to that
which wasn't particularly good in the first place. The other is whether
or not one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why doesn't Ashcroft
point a critical finger at himself for a change? On the surface, it would
seem to have something to do with the way that Ashcroft has an almost
mystical faith in careerism. But upon further investigation, one
will find that the next time he decides to instill a subconscious
feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his epigrams, he
should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? If the mass news
media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding
public attitudes to canonize illaudable ignoramuses as nomological
emblems of propriety, they would doubtlessly report that I am shocked
and angered by Ashcroft's shameless, lethargic improprieties. Such
shameful conduct should never be repeated.
Even though there is blood on Ashcroft's hands, this does not negate
the fact that Ashcroft likes solutions that feed us ever-larger doses
of his lies and crackpot assumptions. Could there be a conflict of
interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his sentiments
are not our only concern. To state the matter in a
few words, he has never satisfactorily proved his
assertion that his vices are the only true virtues. He has merely
justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." Need
I point out that I find much to disagree with in
Ashcroft's mottos? If I recall correctly, if you spot a bumper
sticker that reads, "Ashcroft's lapdogs are hardly strangers to
conformism," you're probably looking at my car. And that's
why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will,
on how to subject his deeds to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant.
There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I
can do it without first stating that every concert that he
attends rapidly degenerates into a free-for-all of slam dancing
and scattered fistfights. Now, that last statement is a bit of an
oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless
substantially true. I don't have time to go into this in as much
detail as I should, but if one dares to criticize even a
single tenet of Ashcroft's imprecations, one is promptly condemned
as cynical, frightful, ribald, or whatever epithet Ashcroft deems
most appropriate, usually without much explanation. Let me close
by reminding you that John Ashcroft's writings are worthy of a
good flush down the toilet.